YALE
DIVINITY SCHOOL
LIBRARY

Gift of
JOHN R. MOTT

THE INSTITUTE OF POLITICS PUBLICATIONS,
WILLIAMS COLLEGE, WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS.

NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS
AND CONDITIONS

¦ THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO ¦ DALLAS
ATLANTA ¦ SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO.. Limited
LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OP CANADA. LTB.
TORONTO

NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS
AND CONDITIONS

BY
STEPHEN PANARETOFF

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1922
All rights retervei

Yale Divinity Library
New Haven. Conn.

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[«- /"l •»-? *^*
PlSIti

Copyright, 1922,
By THE PRESIDENT AND TRUSTEES OF WILLIAMS COLLEGE.

Set up and printed. Published January, 1922.

NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS
AND CONDITIONS

NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS
AND CONDITIONS Lecture I.
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS.
The word Slavs, as it is usually written in English
and other European languages, does not exactly repre
sent the name by which the people to whom it applies
designate themselves. In all Slavic languages of to
day as well as in old Slavic writers the name is Slovem.
The root of the word is found in the names of Slovenes
and Slovaks borne by two Slavic peoples to-day, and
the name of Slavonia, which forms a part of Croatia.
The derivation of the word is obscure and has given
rise to various interpretations. According to some it
was originally the name of a country, while others see
in it the name of a tribe, which by extension in the
course of time was applied to the whole race. Reason
ing from the name Nyemets which they derive from
the Slavic word nyem (dumb), applied by Slavs in
general to a German, some writers have derived the
name Sloveni from the word Slovo (word or speech)
and have explained it to mean the speaking people in
contradistinction from the dumb people, or those
whose language was incomprehensible to the Slavs.
1

2 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Besides the name Sloveni, the names of Anti and
Venedi are supposed to designate Slavic tribes, and the
latter name — Venedi — still survives in the name Wen-
den or Winden, by which the Germans call the Slavs
who live in Saxony and the Eastern Alps.
The Slavic invasions of the Balkan Peninsula began
with the sixth century, although there are writers who
maintain that Slavs entered the Peninsula before that
date on predatory inroads, either by themselves or in
company with other tribes. With the sixth century,
however, the Slavs began their incursions across the
river Danube into the Peninsula not so much with
the object of plundering as of settling in it. By the
middle of the seventh century they had established
themselves so securely over the larger part of the
Peninsula, that the Emperor Constantine Porphyro-
genitus, who wrote in the tenth century, in speaking of
the conditions in the Peninsula in the eighth century,
says that "the whole country was Slavicised and be
came barbarian," that is, non-Greek. Another Greek
writer, towards the end of the tenth century, re
marks: "And even now the whole Epirus and nearly
the whole of Greece and Peloponnesus and Macedonia
are occupied by Slavs." These and other testimonies
about the extent of the Slavic settlements in the Bal
kan Peninsula served as the basis of Prof. Fallmer-
ayer's theory propounded about ninety years ago that
the modern Greeks are not the genuine descendants of
the ancient Hellenes, but hellenized Slavs. This theory
finds now few supporters and has been disproved by
later historians as exaggerated, but the evidence of a
large influx of Slavs into Greece and the Peloponnesus

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 3
is not denied even by those who oppose Fallmerayer's
opinion. The Byzantine Emperors made several at
tempts with varying success at their subjugation. As
late as the thirteenth century these Slavs are reported
to be "audacious people, who have no respect for the
Byzantine Emperor," while even in the fifteenth cen
tury their descendants are said to have spoken partly
Slavic. The Slavs who settled in the Balkan Peninsula had
a tribal organization based upon the clan system. Such
an organization is found also among other Slavs, as
for example those living at that time in Russia, of
which a Russian chronicle tells us that "they had
their own customs, and the law of their fathers and
traditions, every one his own habits." There was no
political union among the Slavs. They recognized no
common ruler, and that is why they are characterized
by some ancient writers as "autonomous" or "without
chiefs or leaders." Each clan was ruled by its own
chief, whose authority was limited by an assembly of
elders or of the whole clan. Democratic government
seems to have been the prevailing system among them,
and one of the native terms for the ruler really means
"army leader," which shows that he was more of a
military chief than a civil administrator. The three
words (Tsar, Krai, Knyaz) that are now in use among
the Slavs to express the idea of king and prince are
borrowed from foreign languages and are not Slavic.
Tsar is a contraction of Caesar, Krai is supposed to
come from the name of Charlemagne — Carolus Mag
nus. — and Knyaz is derived from the same root from
which come Konig in German and king in English.

4 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Let me say here that the word Tsar was by the Rus^
sians exclusively limited to the Emperor of Russia.
When in 1908 Bulgaria declared herself an independent
kingdom and the king assumed the title of Tsar, many
people supposed that this was a sign of Bulgarian im
perialism — that the Bulgarians wanted to establish an
empire on the Balkan Peninsula and that they were
really taking away from the glory of the Russian Em
peror by taking his title. Well, the simple explanation
of the matter is that in the Bulgarian language we
have only one word, Tsar, for king, so that really the
use of the name did not mean imperialism or anything
of the kind; it was the only title which we could give
to our king, as Krai is not in common use among the
people. Living thus politically disunited, the various Slav
onic tribes in the Balkan Peninsula came more or less
under the influence of Byzantium. Some of them suc
ceeded in maintaining their local independence, while
others became subject to the Byzantine emperors. The
main concern of the latter was to make the Slavs accept
chiefs appointed by the provincial governors of the
empire, to do military service and to pay taxes. That
this object was not always easily attained is proved by
the various wars, which the Byzantine army was
obliged to wage against the Slavs. The results obtained
by these military expeditions were seldom certain or
permanent, for very often the Slavic tribes, over
whelmed by the numerical superiority and better dis
cipline of their enemy, would submit only to rise again
the moment a favorable opportunity presented itself.
What the final issue of this struggle between the well-

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 5
organized forces of the Byzantine empire and the dis
organized Slavs would have been is not difficult to sur
mise. They would have been forced eventually to suc
cumb and be incorporated with the empire. This
would certainly have happened, if in the second half
of the seventh century the appearance of the Bulgars
in the Peninsula had not led to the unification of the
Slavs under one ruler, and the foundation of a king
dom, which lasted through various vicissitudes seven
hundred years. By this event the foundations of a
Balkan Slavic State were laid and a nation that exists
to this day was formed.
Within the last five or six years, due to passions
stirred up by the late war, a great deal has been writ
ten about the origin and nationality of the Bulgarians
of to-day. Their Slavic nationality has been denied,
and they have been declared to be by origin Turanians,
Tartars, Turks, Mongols, Huns, Finns, — anything but
Slavs. As these statements, dictated by the spirit of
propaganda, have been widely spread both in this
country and Europe, and have found credence even
among learned men, who should know better, it would
be well to examine into their validity and state the
historical facts bearing upon the subject.
According to Byzantine historians a band of Bulgar
warriors, whose numerical strength is unknown,
crossed over the river Danube in 679 from Roumania
into the northeastern part of Bulgaria, the present
Dobrudja. They easily subdued seven small Slavic
tribes living there, and in the course of time extended
their conquests westward over other Slavic tribes. All
the attempts of Byzantium to prevent their further

6 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
extension or drive them back across the Danube failed.
The Bulgars maintained their position, consolidated
their power as conquerors and out of the disunited
Slavic tribes, which they subdued, they formed a state
under their rule.
Various opinions have been advanced by modern
historians about the race to which these Bulgar con
querors belonged. Some have pronounced them to
have been Tartars, others think that they were Finns,
while others consider them as Huns, Mongols or Turks.
I am inclined to believe that they were affiliated to the
Turkish race. One thing is certain; they were not
Slavs. Everything that we know about their customs,
manners and habits, their military and civil organiza
tion, the titles of their rulers and nobles, points unmis
takably to that fact. The names of the Bulgar Kings
up to the middle of the ninth century, when Chris
tianity became the State religion, are distinctly non-
Slavic. The reports which are found in Byzantine
historians of the eighth and the ninth century about
the wars waged by Byzantium against the newly estab
lished Bulgarian Kingdom, make a clear distinction be
tween Bulgar and Slavic army detachments. Although
the army was under the supreme command of the Bul
gar King, the Slavic detachments were evidently com
manded by their own chiefs. From this we may con
clude that the Slavs, who became subjects of the Bul
gar Kings, were not entirely deprived of their com
munal organization, but shared with their conquerors
in the administration. In a document of the eighth
century, a distinction is made between the Bulgar and
Slav languages, for we are told that the Bulgar King

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 7
had among his counsellors men, who were conversant
with the Greek, the Bulgarian and the Slavic lan
guages. The Bulgar invaders of the Balkan Peninsula were
not a nation. They were a band or a horde of warlike
men, superior to the Slavs in military organization and
discipline, but inferior to them in almost every other
respect. How numerous this band or horde was, is
unknown; but an approximate estimate of its numeri
cal strength may be made by comparing it with that
of another Bulgar band, which about the same time
entered modern Hungary under the leadership of a
brother of the man who was at the head of the Balkan
Bulgars. This band, it is said, numbered 9,000 men.
There is no reason to suppose that the Bulgars who
entered the Balkan Peninsula were much more nu
merous. Granting, however, that they were twice or
ten times that number, it is absurd to suppose that a
nation like the Bulgarians of to-day, which numbers
about six millions, can be the direct descendants of the
original Bulgars. Historical facts contradict such a
supposition, and prove that the modern Bulgarians
take their origin from the numerous Slavs, who in
overwhelming numbers inhabited the territory which
they occupy at the present day. These facts, briefly
stated, are the following:
1. Before the arrival of the Bulgar conquerors and
the establishment by them of a Kingdom, in which
the Slavic element was by far the most predominant,
the Slavs in the Peninsula were in great danger of
falling under the rule of the Byzantine emperors. The
lack of political and social cohesion among the tribes

8 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
rendered them incapable of resisting successfully the
influence of Byzantium. With the constitution of a
State, in which the disunited Slavs were brought, com
paratively speaking, under a well-organized military
and civil administration, a center of gravitation was
created for them.
Even those Slavic tribes that did not enter originally
into the composition of this State did not look upon it
with disfavor, for it represented to them not an alto
gether alien institution, but one in which kinsmen of
theirs had a share. Hence, in the further expansion
of this Slavo-Bulgar or Bulgaro-Slav Kingdom, we do
not find the Slavs outside of the origmal limits of it
offering any violent opposition to its expansion. On
the contrary, it commanded their sympathy, and Pro
fessor Ramband, the well-known French historian, is
right in saying that every time there was a war be
tween Byzantium and Bulgaria, the Slavs under By
zantine dominion were sure to rebel. To them incor
poration with the Bulgar Kingdom was evidently pref
erable to remaining under Byzantine rule.
2. When in the second half of the tenth century the
eastern part of the Bulgarian Kingdom fell under By
zantine rule a long struggle, lasting forty years, was
stoutly maintained in the west — that is, in Macedonia
— against Byzantine attacks. The center of this west
ern Kingdom was in Macedonia and not in Bulgaria
proper, and all chroniclers — Greek, Arab, Armenian
and others — speak of it as Bulgarian and of the people
who took part in the struggle as Bulgarians. It is
positively certain that the original Bulgars never set
foot in Macedonia, the population of which was for the

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 9
most part Slav. The part which these Slavs took in
fighting for the independence of the Bulgarian King
dom, and the name Bulgarians by which they are des
ignated, proves that the original Bulgars had by that
time been thoroughly Slavicized. Their name had be
come synonymous with that of Slav, and their king
dom in the eyes of the Macedonian Slavs was a Slavic
kingdom, a kingdom of their own.
3. When in 885 Methodius, who with his younger
brother Cyril had preached Christianity to the Slavs in
Moravia, died, his pupils, said to have numbered about
200, were exposed to the persecution of the German
hierarchy. They left Moravia and took refuge in Bul
garia, which at that time occupied the position of the
most prominent Slavic State. Both the government
and the people received them gladly, and they found
themselves among their own co-nationals, Slavs like
themselves. They brought with them Slavic church
books, and many of them were given important ap
pointments in the Church of Bulgaria. These men
certainly would not have come to Bulgaria with their
Slavic books, if the country had been peopled by a
Tartar or Turk population with a language totally
unlike the Slavic. In documents of the early part of
the tenth century we find the word Bulgarian used for
Slavic, and the language of the books spoken of as
Bulgarian — that is, the language not of the original
Bulgars, but of the Slavs who had assumed the name
of Bulgarians.
4. With the introduction of Christianity into Bul
garia in the second half of the ninth century, the foun
dations of a literature were laid. It was the first lit-

10 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
erature to appear among the Slavs. The language of
it is purely Slavic, without any Tartar, Turkish or
Finnish traces in it. Its productions were freely copied
by Serbians and Russians as perfectly intelligible to
them. Even to-day this language is called by many
philologists and historians Old-Bulgarian, meaning
thereby not the language of the original non-Slav Bul
gars, but of the numerous Slavs who were their
subjects and at the time of the appearance of the
literature were already known by the name of Bul
garians. In presenting these historical facts I hope that I
have made it clear why the Bulgarians of the present
day cannot be considered the descendants of the origi
nal Bulgars, who were so small in number that they
were easily assimilated to and swallowed up in the
overwhelming Slavic majority. The modern Bulgarian
is essentially a Slavic language, akin to the Russian,
Serbian, Croat, Slovene, etc. In their popular beliefs,
folk-lore, customs and manners the Bulgarians in no
way differ from the other Slavs, and have nothing in
common with Tartars, Turks or Finns. Serbians, Rus
sians and other Slavs have always recognized them as
their brethren, and modern historians and philologists
have proved beyond any doubt their Slavic origin. The
late Czech historian, Prof. Jiretchek, who was a recog
nized authority on the history of the Balkan Slavs,
says: "The ancestors of the Bulgarians of to-day are not
the small bands of Isperikh's Bulgars, who in 679 took
possession of Moesia on the Danube, but the Slavs,
who in the course of the third to the seventh century

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 11
had established themselves in Moesia, as well as in
Thrace, Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly, ay, almost in
the whole Peninsula. The blood of the Finnish Bul
gars [he considers the Bulgars Finns], which princi
pally flowed in the veins of the noble families, seems
to have long since vanished."
The Greek historian Paparigopoulos of the Univer
sity of Athens attributes the complete amalgamation
of the Bulgars with the Slavs to two causes: first, the
Bulgars, being small in number, needed allies; sec
ond, though superior to the Slavs by their warlike vir
tues, they were inferior to them in every other respect;
hence they yielded easily to their moral and social in
fluence. This easy and complete assimilation of the
Bulgars with the Slavs gave rise to the theory, ad
vanced by some Slavic historians of the last century,
one of whom was a Serbian, that the original Bulgars
must have been Slavs, for otherwise they could not
have been absorbed in a little over a century and a
half so completely as not to leave any trace in the
language, the folk-lore or the customs of the modern
Bulgarians. What happened to the origmal Bulgars in the
Balkan Peninsula is not a unique ethnographic phe
nomenon without a parallel in history. Two centuries
before, a Frankish tribe under the leadership of Clovis
extended its conquests in Roman Gaul and established
a kingdom among the Gallo-Romans, whom they sub
dued. The kingdom as well as the people received the
name of the Frankish conqueror and to this day they
are known as France and Frangais. The Germans
still call France Frankreich, the Frank Kingdom, while

12 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
the Frenchman still feels pride in his German name
and does not consider it a derogation to his nationality
to bear it.
The other case is still more to the point, for it is the
exact counterpart of what took place in the Balkan
Peninsula. Two centuries after the establishment of
the Bulgar Kingdom, namely in 862, a band of warlike
Northmen or Normans, bearing the name of Russ and
racially a Scandinavian or Teutonic tribe, came from
the north into Russia, subdued the disunited Slavic
tribes around Kiev, and laid the foundations of the
modern Russian State. As in Bulgaria, so in Russia
the names of the first rulers and of many nobles, which
have been preserved in the Russian chronicles, are of
foreign and not Slavic origin. In a Russian chronicle
we have mention made of a delegation of about twenty
Russians who were sent to Constantinople, I think it
was in the tenth century, to make a treaty with By
zantium. Of the names which are given of these peo
ple not a single one is a Slavic name; they are all
Teutonic. The name Russ became the general designation for
the various Slavic tribes and their country, and it sub
sists to this day. It would be absurd to assert or main
tain that the French and Russians of to-day are Ger
mans or Teutons, because they bear German names.
It is equally absurd and historically untrue to apply
such a reasoning to the modern Bulgarians. What
occurred in these three cases was that a numerically
inferior band or horde of conquerors imposed their
name upon those whom they conquered, but were swal
lowed up in the great mass of the vanquished and dis-

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 13
appeared. Such is the conclusion which historical
facts warrant and which is accepted by all Slav and
other historians and philologists of to-day; all else is
a perversion of history into which one lands when he
tries to distort it and make political capital out of it.
It would be of no particular interest to enter into a
full presentation of the history of Bulgaria, We may
touch only upon its most salient points. From the
beginning of its political existence as a State down to
its downfall under the Turks towards the end of the
fourteenth century, Bulgaria was engaged with few
intermissions in wars against the Byzantine empire.
Peaceful relations were the exception, and common ac
tion between the two very rare. Twice or thrice Bul
garia was able to extend its dominion over almost the
whole Balkan Peninsula as far as the Adriatic sea and
northern Greece. This expansion was due to the per
sonal initiative and enterprise of the ruler at the time.
On his death, when a weak successor was unable to
cope with internal and external difficulties, a collapse
came and all of the advantages formerly gained were
lost. In the thirteenth century, when Constantinople
fell under Latin domination, the Bulgarian kings
worked in harmony with the Greek emperor, who had
transferred his capital from Constantinople to Nicsea,
to drive the Latins out, and had a large share in break
ing their power. When the common danger, however,
was passed, the former hostile feeling between Byzan
tium and Bulgaria reappeared. From the second half
of the 13th century the Bulgarian Kingdom may be
said to have begun its downward course. Internal dis
sensions and rivalries among the nobility, frequent re-

14 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
bellions against the royal authority, court intrigues
from within and from without, foreign invasions and
wars were gradually sapping the foundations of the
State. When in the year 1353 the Turks crossed over
from Asia Minor and established themselves at Galli-
poli and the Dardanelles in Europe, Bulgaria was in
the throes of political agony. Ten years later the Turks
occupied Adrianople and in a few years more they had
conquered almost the whole of Thrace, from where
their irruption into the north of the Peninsula was
only a question of time. Their conquest of Bulgaria
was facilitated because of the division of the Kingdom
into two parts, ruled by two half-brothers, whose mu
tual relations were unfriendly. In 1393 the Bulgarian
capital, Tirnovo, was captured and the country became
a Turkish province.
There is a great deal of similarity between the his
tory of the Bulgarians and that of the Serbians. The
latter like the former had to wage frequent wars with
the Byzantine empire and neighboring countries. Prof.
Jiretchek considers the territory between the rocky
mountains of Montenegro and its surroundings and
the basin of the river Morava as the oldest and most
permanent fatherland of the Serbian people. It is
what is called to-day Old Serbia, which is found on the
river Rasa near the old town of Rasa, the modern
name of which is Novi-Bazar, or New Market Town.
Specifying more particularly this territory, he says:
"Among the Slavic tribes that settled in the Balkan
lands, the real Serbians established themselves origi
nally in the interior of the country, and lived away
from the Danube and the sea in the valleys of the

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 15
rivers Lim, Ibar and western Morava." The name
Serbs, which originally denoted one of the Slavic tribes,
was gradually extended to the neighboring tribes and
their kinsmen, so that it was applied sometimes to the
Croats and to those living in the Herzegovina of to-day.
About the way the Serbians and Croats came to set
tle in the Balkan Peninsula, a story is told by Con-
stantine Porphyrogenitus, which most probably is
only a legend. The Byzantine Emperor, Heraklios
(575-642), wishing to people some regions devastated
by former incursions of predatory tribes, invited the
Serbians and Croats to occupy them. The probability
is that both these Slavic peoples entered the Peninsula
at some time or other during the Slav immigration,
although they were not known by those names to the
Byzantine historians, or the latter knew very little as
to what was going on at the time in distant parts of
the Peninsula. The names Serbs and Croats are met
with for the first time in the ninth century. The in
troduction of Christianity among the Serbs and Croats
is referred by the same historian to the reign of Em
peror Heraklios. It is said that priests sent by the
Pope of Rome at the emperor's request baptized them.
The conversion, if it did really take place, was either
not complete or the people soon lapsed into their for
mer heathen practices, for about two centuries and a
half later we read of another conversion again by order
of a Byzantine emperor. This took place soon after
the conversion of the Bulgarians and the translation
into Slavic of the church books. Both these events
must have helped the firmer establishment of Chris
tianity among the Serbs.

16 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
The history of the Serbs before the thirteenth cen
tury presents very little interest. The country was
divided into small counties mled over by chiefs, called
Zhupans, one of whom, probably owing to his larger
possessions, was called the Great Chief. Dissensions
and strifes about supremacy or the succession were
very frequent among the chiefs, and opened the door
to outside interference. Greek and Latin writers speak
of the ruler of the country as archon or dux, whose
power was limited by the other chiefs who acted as his
advisers, and by the people's Assembly. The govern
ment was based upon democratic principles as among
the other Slavs. But in the course of time his power
grew wider, until towards the end of the twelfth cen
tury Stephen Nemanya succeeded in founding a dy
nasty which ruled over Serbia till the second half of
the fourteenth century. With him Serbian history
really begins, and under his successors the country ac
quired the position of a Balkan State with which its
neighbors had to reckon. The unification of the re
gion inhabited by Serbians was gradually and suc
cessfully accomplished. Nemanya was fortunate in
being succeeded by a very able son, who consolidated
the work begun by his father and is known in Serbian
history as "the first-crowned" King. Quarrels and
wars among rival brothers and relatives in the Ne
manya family were not wanting, but the dynasty sur
vived them all. Wars against Byzantium, the Hun
garians, the Bulgarians and other neighboring coun
tries, as Bosnia, Ragusa, etc., in which the Serbians
were involved, were maintained with success and the
frontiers of the Kingdom were extended. Under the

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 17
rule of Stephen Dushan (1331-1355) Serbian power in
the Peninsula reached its highest point. Nearly two-
thirds of the Peninsula came under his authority, and
in order to assert his preponderating influence, Dushan
was proclaimed "Tsar" by a Serbian parliament and as
sumed the title of "Tsar of the Serbians and Greeks." *
He also promulgated a code of laws, known by his name,
the contents of which prove that Serbia at that time
was juridically and administratively a well-organized
State. Unfortunately, the grand work accomplished
by Dushan could not be maintained and carried on by
his successors. Rivalries and jealousies among the va
rious chieftains, dissensions and even wars between
pretenders to the Serbian throne, destroyed the po
litical structure that Dushan had erected and divided
the country into small and mutually hostile principali
ties. According to the opinion of a modem Serbian
historian (Prof. Stanoyeivitch of Belgrade), the king
dom of Dushan was composed of elements differing in
nationality, religion, traditions, culture and political
tendencies. His personality alone held together these
heterogeneous elements and prevented a dechne. At
his death, the centrifugal and separatist elements
gained the upper hand, and ambitious feudal gover
nors of provinces, which during the reign of Dushan
had not had the time to amalgamate, were eager to
weaken the kingly power and strengthen their own in
fluence. Serbia, like Bulgaria, was found at the time
of the Turkish invasion of the Peninsula a distracted
'This title was always assumed by either Bulgarian or Serbian
kings whenever they extended their dominion over the great part
of the peninsula. They always called themselves "Tsar of the
Bulgarians and Greeks" or "Tsar of the Serbians and Greeks."

18 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
country, and although it made supreme efforts to with
stand the Turkish onslaught, the elements of disinte
gration were preparing its downfall. In 1389, at the
fateful battle at Kossovo Polje, Serbian independence
was shattered. For seventy years more Serbia existed
as a vassal of the Sultan, bound to pay him tribute and
supply him with a military contingent; but in 1459
she lost the few privileges she had and was annexed
to Turkey as a simple Turkish province.
The internal history of both Serbia and Bulgaria
during the time of Turkish domination till the pe
riod of their resuscitation is very imperfectly known.
The Turkish conquest forced thousands of people to
flee from their homes into neighboring countries, as
Roumania and Hungary. In the beginning the Turks
respected the communal organizations of the Chris
tians. What they cared most about was that the lat
ter should be submissive, pay their taxes and render
all the service that their masters required of them dur
ing the almost incessant wars, which they waged for
the extension of their dominions. These wars natur
ally kept the Christian people in constant servitude,
for they were obliged to supply the Turkish army,
without any remuneration, with food, means of trans
portation and everything else that they might want.
The lawlessness of the troops increased the people's
hardships and helped to devastate the regions through
which they passed on their expeditions. It was the
Sultan's policy, however, to propitiate his Christian
subjects as far as he could, because he needed their as
sistance in his efforts to push his conquests beyond the
limits of the Balkan Peninsula.

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 19
If we may believe popular tradition, the Christians
did not have a bad opinion of Turkish rule, when it
was first established among them. According to a
Serbian popular ballad the despot 1 or mler of Serbia
once asked the famous John Hunyadi, the Hungarian
hero, who was trying to persuade him to continue
the war against the Turks: "If we are conquerors,
what will you do with us?" "You will go to Rome
and implore the Pope's benediction," was the reply,
meaning thereby that the Serbians would have to
become Roman Catholics. Not satisfied with this
prospect, the Serbian ruler put the same question
to the Sultan, and received in answer the following
assurance: "By every mosque there will be a church
and every one will be free to bow before the one or
to cross himself before the other."
Whether any Turkish Sultan ever made such a gen
erous promise or not is immaterial. The facts are that
the Christians for a long time were forbidden to erect
new churches, and even the repairing of churches al
ready existing could not be undertaken except on a
special permit by the Sultan himself. This permit
usually was not readily granted, and entailed a great
deal of expense, mostly graft, before it was obtained.
The sufferings of the Christian subjects of Turkey
increased in intensity when the former power of the
Empire began to wane and internal disintegration, ow
ing to the vices and corruption of the authorities, set
in. The Janissaries, who were recruited from Chris
tian children, were the elite troops by which the Sul-
* Despot is the title that the ruler of Serbia bore at that time. It
does not mean a tyrant; it simply means a ruler, and in modern
Greek the word is used to designate a bishop.

20 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
tans won their splendid victories. It was a terrible
toll which the poor Christians had to pay, in addition
to other taxes and exactions, for three hundred years.
The corps, under the loose discipline and bad adminis
tration of later weak Sultans, degenerated into a body
of legalized plunderers, a terror to the Christians and
a standing menace to the Sultans themselves. The
testimony of contemporary writers, who had visited
Turkey in the sixteenth century, assures us that the
Janissary corps at that time was so overwhelmingly
Slav that they spoke their respective languages, Ser
bian or Bulgarian. Many Christians converted to Mo
hammedanism occupied the highest posts in the ad
ministration of the empire as grand viziers — that is,
prime ministers — or in the army and navy as officers.
Even in the Sultan's court the Slav element predomi
nated and many documents issued by the imperial
chancery are extant written in the Slavic language with
Cyrillic characters. These high functionaries came
mostly from former noble Slav families in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, who in order to save their lives and prop
erty became converts to Mohammedanism. Some of
them, however, who were of obscure origin, by their
ability or by the favoritism of the Sultan rose to high
positions, for in Turkey public offices were not lim
ited to a standing aristocracy, but were open to all who
either by merit or by "pull" could attain to them. It
is said that in the sixteenth century, during the grand-
viziership of the famous Mehmed Sokolli or Sokolitch,
by origin a Serbian of Bosnia, half of his council con
sisted of Mohammedan Slavs. These Christian rene
gades, among whom there were also Albanians and

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 21
Greeks, were really the great factors who rendered the
greatest services to the Sultans in the extension of
their empire and the administration of it. Von Ham
mer, the historian, says: "It was a State maxim with
the Osmanlis (the Turks), that one had to be the son
of a Christian in order to attain to the highest dig
nities of the Empire."
The ascendancy which these Mohammedan converts
acquired in the councils of the Sultans brought no re
lief to the mass of Christians, who were exposed to op
pression. At rare intervals feeble attempts at rebel
lion against the lawlessness of the military and civil
authorities were made, but they were quickly and
sternly repressed. As the Christians were forbidden
to carry arms, they were helpless before their oppres
sors. Speaking of Serbia in the 16th century, Ranke,
the German historian, quotes a traveller of that time
who describes the people as "poor captives, none of
whom dared to lift up his head." The same might
justly be said of the other Christians in the Peninsula.
The impossibility of obtaining any outside help for
their deliverance from the Turkish yoke or of throw
ing it off by their own unaided efforts, brought about
a curious social phenomenon in the life of the Chris
tians, which needs some explanation in order to be
understood and appreciated. Its parallel may be
found in the story of Robin Hood, so familiar to stu
dents of English history. Among civilized people of
to-day brigandage is considered as a highly disrepu
table profession, and the brigand a reprobate and an
outlaw of society to be despised and hunted down.
Not farther back than the last century, ere any of the

22 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Balkan States had regained their political independ
ence, the Bulgarian holdout, the Serbian haidouk and
the Greek klephtis, all meaning a brigand, were re
garded by their fellow-countrymen with sympathy and
admiration. The people delighted in telling of their
deeds, and many a popular ballad, current even to
day, extols them as meritorious heroes.
To a foreigner, unacquainted with the social and po
litical conditions under which the Christians had lived
for centuries under the Turkish rule, this attitude
towards brigandage and brigands seems a sign of moral
depravity. The Christian brigand, however, was not
a sneak thief or a vile cut-throat, who took to his pro
fession out of a wanton desire for murder. He was a
man who, wronged and outraged in his own person or
in that of his family by Turkish misrule and injustice,
or unable to bear the sight of Turkish insolence and
oppression, preferred to shoulder his gun and lead a
life of freedom in the mountains. A Greek folk-song
relates how a son, in bidding good-bye to his mother,
tells her that he can no longer bear to live under the
Turks; he prefers life in the mountains with the wild
beasts to living with the Turks in the plains, and begs
his mother to pray that he may kill as many Turks
as he can.
These brigands used to go in bands under the lead
ership of a captain chosen by them, with a standard
bearer, and their chief object was to keep in fear and
respect the Turkish oppressor, and afford protection
and defence to the Christian. With the loot which
they obtained from the exercise of their profession,
they not infrequently, as the popular ballads tell us,

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 23
helped poor people in distress or made donations to
churches and monasteries. Among the leaders of such
brigand bands women also are mentioned, and some of
them are represented to have been superior to the men
in valor, and very dextrous in the manipulation of
weapons. In the struggle for independence of Greece,
Serbia and Bulgaria, these so-called outlaws took an
active part and rendered valuable service as leaders of
insurgent bands. With the extinction of Turkish rule
the profession of the brigand has fallen into disrepute,
and if at any time wicked and lawless men, actuated
by ferocious instincts, have taken to it, they have been
quickly and summarily dealt with, because their con
duct found no support among the people.
The Serbians who, at various times since the con
quest of Serbia by the Turks, emigrated into Hungary,
took an active share with the Austrian army in trying
to stem the tide of Turkish invasion. They formed the
so-called military boundary and had to bear the first
impact of the Turkish attacks. It was among them
that the spirit of freedom was more or less maintained.
To the Montenegrins (who belong to the Serbian race)
belongs the greatest praise for the determination with
which they have striven to resist the establishment of
Turkish rule in their country. The history of Monte
negro is almost an uninterrupted series of wars waged
against the attempts of the Turks to plant their flag
upon its rocky mountains. Favored by the nature of
their country, the brave mountaineers have desperately
defended themselves and the Turks have never suc
ceeded in really subduing them and establishing their
rule oyer the country.

24 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
The existence of a large Serbian population in Aus
tria was of great service to Serbia in her efforts to
regain her political independence in the early part of
the last century. In comparison with the condition of
the Serbians under the rule of Turkey, that of the
Serbians in Austria was vastly better. Civil and mili
tary offices were open to them, and many of them
gained distinction, especially in the army. During the
wars which Austria was obliged to wage for the re
covery of her territories from the Turks, Serbia was
occupied and held, off and on, by Austrian troops. A
great number among these troops were Serbians, and
the contact with them must have awakened among the
people of Serbia ideas of political freedom and national
self-assertion. In the successful issue of the Serbian
stmggle for independence in the first quarter of the
nineteenth century and in the organization of a Ser
bian government the Austrian Serbians rendered valu
able services.
The Serbian element in Turkey suffered considerable
diminution by the emigrations which the Austro-
Turkish wars necessitated. This loss was felt most
sensibly in the regions of what is called Old Serbia,
north of the Shar Mountain. In the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries these territories fell for a time
under Austrian rule, but eventually had to be retro-
ceded to Turkey. Fearing the vengeance of the Turks
on their reoccupation of the territory many thousands
of Serbians preferred to emigrate to Austria, where
they were certain of better treatment by a Christian
government. The country thus vacated by the Ser
bians was occupied by Albanians, who, favored by the

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 25
Turkish government, have pushed forward their settle
ments south of the Shar Mountain into Macedonia.
The policy of having these Albanian settlements
planted among the Christians of Macedonia has been
to overawe and keep in subjection the Christians.
These Albanians, who were practically unmolested by
the provincial authorities in their treatment of the
Christians, have been one of the principal causes of
all the unrest and discontent in Macedonia. As these
regions are now in the possession of Yugoslavia, Al
banian licence will be curbed, and if Albania gets an
independent government of her own, these Albanians
may prefer to join their fellow-countrymen to remain
ing under the domination of Yugoslavia. The pos
sibility of future disagreements and even conflicts
between Albania and Yugoslavia in regard to these
territories that are inhabited by Albanians is not at
all excluded.
Another people of the Balkan peninsula which de
serves notice because of its intermixture with the Bul
garians and Serbians are the so-called Aromani of
Thessaly and Macedonia. The name Aromani is the
one they like to give to themselves. The name by
which they are called by their neighbors is Vlakh,
Koutso-Vlakh or Tsintsar.1 The accepted theory
about their origin is that they are the Latinized de
scendants of the Thracians. Their language is akin to
the Roumanian, with a great many words borrowed
'Vlakh is supposed to have the meaning of a stranger, foreigner,
like the word Welsh. In Polish and Czekh the word means Roman
and Italian. Koutso Vlakh means a lame Vlakh, while Tsintsar is
derived from the word tsintsi (five) which these people use instead
of tchintchi in Roumanian.

26 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
from the Greek. The Vlakhs have been very sus
ceptible to the process of hellenization, and in the
opinion of those who are well acquainted with Mace
donia and its nationalities, most of the people whom
Greek statistics give out as Greek are really hellenized
Aromani. According to Dr. Weigand, the best author
ity on the Balkan Vlakhs, they number gbout 160,000,
half of them inhabiting Thessaly around Mount Pindus
and the other half Macedonia. The Aromani form
nowhere a compact mass; they are mostly scattered
among the other nationalities of the province. The
interest that the kingdom of Roumania has taken in
them has been dictated by political expediency rather
than by any consideration of Roumanian vital inter
ests. In order to justify to a certain extent her claim
to have a part in the solution of the Macedonian
question, the Roumanian government has openly car
ried on a propaganda among the Aromani by subsidiz
ing their churches and schools. The propaganda has
been a failure, for the Aromani by themselves and
separated from the Greeks are not numerically or
otherwise strong enough to act as a factor in the ques
tions affecting the Balkan Peninsula.
In looking back upon the history of the Balkan Slavs
one notices with regret the want of union among them.
The history of the Balkan Peninsula might have been
different if Serbia and Bulgaria, while existing as
independent States, had acted in unison, instead of
engaging, as they did, in mutual jealousies and strifes.
Disunion and mutual envy, of which foreign intrigues
have often availed themselves to work woe among
them, are the characteristic weaknesses of the Slavic

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE BALKAN SLAVS 27
peoples. Unfriendly relations existed in the past not
only between Serbians and Bulgarians, but between
Serbians on the one hand and Croats and Bosnians on
the other. Had all the Slavs in the Peninsula acted as
one man at the time of the Turkish invasion, the day
of Kossovo Polje, instead of marking the defeat of the
Cross by the Crescent, might have marked a victory
which would have secured the prolonged free develop
ment of all the people of the Balkan Peninsula.

Lecture II.
CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE.
As church questions have always played in the
Near East a large part in national questions, I have
chosen for the subject of the lecture this morning "The
Beginnings of Church Organization and the Beginnings
of Literature among the Slavs of the Near East."
The second half of the ninth century marks an im
portant epoch in the history of the Slavs. The official
introduction of Christianity among the Bulgarians in
864, and the composition of a Slavic alphabet a short
time before, opened to the Slavs the path of progress
and culture. These two events affected not the Bul
garians alone; they exerted a powerful influence more
or less upon the whole Slavic world. That Christianity
had found its way even before the second half of the
ninth century among the Slavs, especially among those
who had settled as early as the seventh century in the
Balkan Peninsula, is certain.
In the sixth century, during the reign of Emperor
Justinian, we find Slavs serving in the imperial army
as soldiers and high officers. You know the opinion
has been advanced that Emperor Justinian himself
was a Slav by origin ; but I think anyone, after reading
what Viscount Bryce has written on the subject, must
come to the conclusion that it is a baseless story. As
28

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 29
heathens had ceased by that time to be accepted in
the army and the government of the empire, the prob
ability is that these Slavs were Christians.
Among the clergy and the monks there were also
many Slavs, who, in the absence of a written Slavic
language and Slavic church books, used the Greek
language and liturgy in the church services. One of
these Slavs occupied under the name of Niketas the
Patriarchal throne of Constantinople from 766 to 780.
Their knowledge of Greek must have been rather lim
ited, if we may judge from what is related of the Pa
triarch Niketas, who was wont to pronounce the Greek
diphthongs ai, oi as two syllables and not as the mod
ern Greeks pronounce them as one syllable. One of
his deacons ventured onoe to correct him, whereupon
the Patriarch retorted angrily: "My soul abhors diph
thongs and triphthongs."
In the Balkan Peninsula Christianity was spread
more easily and more widely among the Slavs of
Macedonia, who were for a long time under the direct
rule and influence of Byzantium. In becoming Chris
tians they came under the jurisdiction of the Greek
Patriarch of Constantinople, they attended church
services in the Greek language and made use of the
Greek alphabet in writing their own language. It
was from among the Macedonian Slavs, that the two
men, Cyril and Methodius, came, to whom the Slavs,
especially those who belong to the Eastern Orthodox
Church, owe the construction of an alphabet, the
translation of the Church books and the Bible, and the
wider and firmer establishment of the Christian re
ligion among them.

30 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
There is no name of any Slav so well known even
to the little children in the primary schools of Bul
garia or even Russia as the names of Saints Cyril and
Methodius. I use the name "Eastern Orthodox
Church" for the Greek Church. It is unfortunate that
in Enghsh a great deal of confusion is produced by
using different names for this Church. The Greek
Church is not exactly the title which ought to be given
to it, because it is not exclusively Greek. There are
Russians, Bulgarians, Roumanians and Serbians who
belong to that church. To call it the Greek Catholic
Church, as sometimes people here do, produces in the
mind especially of a man from the Near East, a wrong
impression, because to him Catholic means Roman
Catholic, so that Greek Catholic Church would be
understood to mean a Greek Church of the Roman
rite. The official and the usual title by which the
church itself likes to be called is the Eastern Ortho
dox Church. By "orthodox" it means the church
which teaches the right doctrines.
These two Slavic Apostles, as they are usually
called, were natives of Saloniki and sons of a distin
guished Byzantine army officer. Whether they were
Greeks or Slavs is a disputed question and will never
be settled. The younger brother, Constantine (that
was his name as a layman, which afterwards he
changed to Cyril when he became a monk, and by the
name of Cyril he is best known), born in 827, spent
his youth in Constantinople, where he was educated
under the tutorship of the well-known Patriarch Pho-
tius. By his learning, both in languages, philosophy and
theology, he rose to be the librarian of the Patriarchate

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 31
and a professor of philosophy at the court school in
the emperor's palace. In 862, he was sent, together
with his elder brother Methodius, to Moravia, in con
sequence of a mission from two Moravian princes, who
asked the Byzantine emperor to send them men,
versed in the Slavic language and capable of instruct
ing their subjects, already converted to Christianity,
in their vernacular. Before their departure for Mo
ravia, in 855, as a writer of the first quarter of the
tenth century informs us, Cyril had already composed
an alphabet for the Slavs and had translated parts of
the New Testament, probably the gospels, and the
liturgy. I use the words "composed an alphabet" and not
"invented an alphabet," which is very often used, be
cause, as we shall see, the present Slavic alphabet is
not an invention, but it is the Greek alphabet with
some additional letters.
The work of the two brothers in Moravia, which
was under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Pope
of Rome, their preaching and translation of the Bible
went on unhindered up to the death of Cyril at Rome
in 869.
For any future visitor to remember, it mightibe h>
teresting to know that recently, or within the last few
years, frescos have been discovered with pictures in
the Church of St. Clement in Rome, where Cyril is
supposed to be buried, and one of these frescos which
I saw when I was in Rome some years ago is supposed
to represent Cyril baptizing a Moravian or a Slavic
prince. After the death of Cyril his brother Methodius
was appointed by the Pope Bishop of Pannonia (a

32 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
part of modern Hungary) and Moravia, and continued
his evangelistic work till his death in 885. The
German clergy, during his life time, had begun to
feel hostile to the use of the Slavic language in
stead of the Latin in the church services; but Meth
odius had succeeded with the help of the Pope in
maintaining his position and fighting his opponents.
The opposition, however, grew much stronger after
his death, and his disciples and co-workers were forced
to flee from Moravia to Bulgaria, where they found a
hearty welcome. The fruit of the great work of the
two brothers of Saloniki is enjoyed to this day by
about 112 million Slavs, who hear God's word to-day
from the translation which was made by them more
than a thousand years ago.
The conversion of the Bulgarian King Boris in 864
and the official introduction of Christianity into Bul
garia gave a greater impetus to its spread among the
Slavs in the Balkan Peninsula. It was from Byzan
tium that Boris received Christianity, and the first
teachers and preachers of the new faith among the
converted Bulgarians must have been either Greeks
or hellenized Slavs. In the absence of an established
church organization in the early days of the conver
sion, Bulgaria became the field of various preachers
of other professions or faiths, who flocked into the
country. This we learn from the questions which King
Boris sent with a delegation to Pope Nicolas I in 866,
two years after his conversion, asking his opinion on
various points of Christian law and doctrine. Three
or four of these questions refer to Mohammedan books
current in the country, to a Jew who had baptized

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 33
many people, to a Greek who falsely representing him
self as a priest had baptized many, and to many
preachers who had come from various lands, as Greece,
Armenia and other places, into the country, and were
teaching various discordant doctrines. But one of
the most important questions and which probably
suggested the dispatch of the delegation to Rome is:
"Can we not have a Patriarch appointed for us, and
who should appoint him?"
It is evident from this question that the Constan
tinople Patriarch had refused to sanction the estab
lishment of an autonomous national Church in Bul
garia. King Boris must have considered it beneath
his dignity as an independent ruler to have his king
dom in Church matters dependent on the Patriarch
of Constantinople. Hence he determined to enter
into relations with the Pope of Rome and obtain from
him, as the Eastern and Western Churches had not
at that time separated, the consecration of a Patri
arch for the Bulgarian Church. The negotiations,
however, failed, because the Pope refused to conse
crate even for an archbishop, the man whom the Bul
garian King had chosen.
In 869 a church council was convoked in Constan
tinople by the Emperor, at which Papal delegates were
also present, in order to settle the rival claims of
Ignatius and Photius to the patriarchal throne. The
Council had almost reached an amicable settlement
and was about to disperse, when a delegation from the
Bulgarian King appeared at its sitting of March 3,
870. Speaking in the name of their King, the dele
gates said: "Up to now we were heathen and only a

34 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
short time ago we came to know the tme God, Christ
Jesus. But not to remain in error, we wish to learn
from you, representatives of the great patriarchs, to
what church do we belong?"
The question fell like a bombshell amidst the Coun
cil. The papal delegates unanimously declared that
there could be no question whatever that Bulgaria
belonged to the Roman Church, as it had already asked
and obtained from the Pope spiritual teachers and
preachers. The Greek members of the Council, how
ever, took a different view of the matter, and put the
following question to the Bulgarian delegates: "When
you conquered that country (i. e., Bulgaria) to whom
did it belong and what priests did you find in it, Greek
or Latin?" To their reply that they had conquered
the country from the Greeks and had found in it Greek
and not Latin priests, the overwhelming majority of
the Council said: "This being so, it is plain that your
country was and ought to be subject to the Constan
tinople Patriarch." The papal delegates left the Coun
cil highly displeased and angered, and the question of
the Bulgarian church, having been decided in favor
of the Constantinople Patriarch, tended to widen the
breach between Rome and Byzantium, which in 1054
culminated in the well-known great schism of the
Church. The Greek Patriarch recognized the internal auton
omy of the Bulgarian church at the head of which was
placed an archbishop or metropohtan, whose residence
was in the capital of the Kingdom. Ten bishoprics
were created, and the Bulgarian archbishop on public
occasions, at which he happened to be present in Con-

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 35
stantinople, occupied the first place after the Patri
arch. In the reign of Boris' son and successor, King
Simeon, who during his reign from 893 to 927, assumed
the title of Tsar of Bulgarians and Greeks, owing to
his extended rule over the Balkan Peninsula, the arch
bishop of Bulgaria was honored with the title of Pa
triarch. It is uncertain whether this title was given
to him with the consent of the Patriarch of Constan
tinople or the Pope of Rome, or whether King Simeon
of his own will conferred the title upon him. The
title was, however, officially recognized by the Patri
arch and his Synod not many years after Simeon's
death, and the Bulgarian Church was declared self-
governed ( autocephalous) .
The Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes only four
canonical Patriarchs: those of Constantinople, of
Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem. Nobody
else is allowed to be called a Patriarch if possible, on
the ground, as common tradition has it, that as there
were only four evangelists, there cannot be more than
four Patriarchs.
The Patriarch of Constantinople is not like the Pope
of Rome. On the contrary, he is first among equals,
and the other three Patriarchs claim the same honors
and the same dignity that he does, but they recognize
his superiority as being the Patriarch resident in the
capital of the Empire. As you know, he claims the
title of (Ecumenical Patriarch, that is, if you translate
it, as it is now, you would say the Patriarch of the
whole universe, but at the time that he assumed this
title by the name of (Ecumene, the Greeks under
stood the inhabited part of the Empire, because they

36 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
considered that everything outside of the Empire was
nothing but a desert.
Owing to internal dissensions that brought about a
division in the kingdom of Bulgaria in the second half
of the tenth century, the eastern part of the country
between the river Danube and the Balkan mountains
lost its independence to Byzantium and ecclesiasti
cally became subject to the Greek Patriarch. In the
western part, namely in Macedonia, under the leader
ship of a new King, the struggle against Byzantium
for national independence was continued for over forty
years, until in 1018 the Emperor Basil II (976-1025)
conquered the whole country, annexed it to the em
pire, and put an end to the existence of the Bulgarian
Kingdom. In depriving the Bulgarians of their politi
cal independence, Basil II did not deprive them of
their ecclesiastical organization. After the fall of the
eastern part of Bulgaria under Byzantine rule and
during the forty years' war in Macedonia, the seat
of the head of the Bulgarian Church was moved to
the town of Ohrida in Macedonia, which had become
the capital of the western kingdom. The Byzantine
Emperor maintained the autonomy of the Bulgarian
church of Ohrida and by imperial charters confirmed
its rights and extended its jurisdiction over the whole
of Bulgaria, but deprived it of the title of Patriarch
ate. Up to the time of its abolition in the 18th cen
tury it was known as the Bulgarian Archbishopric of
Ohrida. Both the archbishop and his suffragan bish
ops were appointed by the Emperor and were almost
always Greeks; but they stoutly defended their rights

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 37
and privileges against any encroachment of the Patri
arch of Constantinople.
For 168 years Bulgaria remained a province of By
zantium and under the spiritual jurisdiction of the
Archbishop of Ohrida. When in 1186 Bulgaria re
gained her political independence a new archbishop
was proclaimed in Tirnovo, the capital, without the
preliminary sanction of the Patriarch of Constanti
nople. In order to obtain such a sanction, application
was made to the Pope in the beginning of the thir
teenth century, both for the granting of a royal crown
to the King and the elevation of the archbishop to
the rank of a Patriarch. The request was granted and
the King and the Patriarch gave a declaration of sub
mission to the Holy See, which, however, was never
fully carried out. This pretended submission of the
Bulgarian Church to the Pope was only a political
stroke, a declaration of a simple union with the Roman
church and not an acceptance of Catholicism or re
nunciation of the dogmas and doctrines of the East-
em Orthodox Church. As at that time Constantinople
was conquered by the Latins, the Bulgarian King, in
order to secure himself against their attacks, sought
to gain the Pope's protection. This is fully confirmed
by the fact that about a quarter of a century later
Bulgaria was at war with the Latins and concluded an
alliance against them with the Greek emperor of
Nicaea, who had replaced the one of Byzantium. At
the same time the Archbishop of Tirnovo was formally
recognized as Patriarch by the Greek Patriarch with
the consent and approval of those of Jerusalem, Anti-

38 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
och and Alexandria. This Patriarchate subsisted till
1393, when Bulgaria was conquered by the Turks and
in church relations placed under the jurisdiction of
the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Archbishopric
of Ohrida, which was always known by the name of
Bulgarian, maintained itself till 1767, when at the
suggestion of the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, it
was abolished and all its dioceses annexed to the
Patriarchate. The early history of the introduction of Christianity
among the Serbo-Croats is not quite clear. Accord
ing to the testimony of Constantine Porphyrogenitus,
emperor and writer of the tenth century, Christianity
was introduced among the Serbo-Croats at two dif
ferent periods. The first was during the reign of the
Byzantine emperor Heraklios in the seventh century,
who, it is said, asked the Pope of Rome to send priests
to convert and baptize them. The second conversion
took place in the second half of the ninth century
through priests sent from Byzantium. Nothing is
known about the church organization in the lands oc
cupied by the Serbians in the earlier middle ages.
Mention is made of a bishop of Belgrade and anothei
of Morava in the second half of the ninth century, and
the probability is that they were under the jurisdiction
of the head of the Bulgarian Church, as their dioceses
were politically dependent on the Bulgarian King
dom. In later years, during the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, Serbian bishoprics were under the jurisdic
tion of the Archbishop of Ohrida. Of these bishoprics,
that of Rasa, modern Novi-Bazar, assumed greater im
portance and became the foundation for the erection

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 39
of a self -governed (autocephalous) Serbian national
church in the thirteenth century. This took place in
1219, two years after the Serbian Great Zhupan or
ruler Stephen Nyemanya received a royal crown from
the Pope, whereby he assumed the title of King, and
is known in Serbian history as Stephen the First-
Crowned. The establishment of a national Serbian church is
closely connected with the name of the younger broth
er of King Stephen, widely known under the name of
Sava, as one of the prominent saints of the Serbian
Church. Led by his ascetic tendencies and pious bent
to religious studies, he forsook in his youth all that
royal parentage could offer him, fled from home to
Mount Athos and there assumed the garb of a monk.
His father, equally a pious man, eventually followed
his son's example, abdicated the throne and became
a member of the monastic brotherhood of Athos. You
know Mount Athos is the sacred mountain of the
Eastern Orthodox Church. It is full of monasteries
and one of the mles is that no woman or anything
female is ever allowed to put foot on its shores. In
1219 King Stephen sent his brother Sava to Nicsea,
where the Greek Emperor and the Greek Patriarch then
resided, to ask for the appointment of an archbishop
of Serbia. The request was readily granted, and Sava
was consecrated as the first Serbian Archbishop. This
action of the Patriarch drew a strong protest from
the then Archbishop of Ohrida, who maintained that
Serbia was subject to his spiritual jurisdiction. He
contested the legality of Sava's consecration, declared
that by it his rights were infringed, and threatened

40 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
the newly-created archbishop with excommunication.
The protests of the Archbishop of Ohrida, however,
changed nothing in what had been done in Nicaea.
Whether from a desire to placate the offended Arch
bishop, or unwilling to have the Serbian Church de
pendent on the Greek Patriarch, we find the successor
of King Stephen turn to the Archbishop of Ohrida and
not to the Patriarch for the elucidation of certain
church questions that interested him. This greatly
displeased Archbishop Sava, who resigned his office
and left the country on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. On
his return homeward he stopped over in Tirnovo, the
capital of Bulgaria, to pay a visit to the King, and
there died in 1236.
Sava is just as widely known and respected among
the Serbians as Cyril and Methodius are among the
Bulgarians. He is, in fact, called the Illuminator of
the Serbian people.
In the fourteenth century Serbia, under the able
rule of Stephen Dushan, became the most powerful
State in the Balkan Peninsula, and the King assumed
the title of "Tsar of the Serbians and Greeks." With
the consent of the Bulgarian Patriarch of Tirnovo and
the Archbishop of Ohrida the Serbian Archbishop of
Ipek was raised in 1346 to the rank of a Patriarch,
without the sanction of the Patriarch of Constan
tinople. One of the most interesting facts about this Serbian
Patriarchate is that, having for a long time ceased to
exist, it was renewed about the sixteenth century by
order of the famous Turkish Grand Vizier, Mehemet
Sokolli, who was really a Serbian from Bosnia. To

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 41
show you how intricate and complex these questions
were in those days, while this man Mehemet was Grand
Vizier of the Ottoman Empire and a Mohammedan,
his younger brother was a Christian Serbian bishop.
So, for the sake of his brother the Grand Vizier or
dered that the Patriarchate should be revived and that
his brother be appointed Patriarch. Thus we find the
two brothers, one governing the Church of Serbia as
a Christian, the other governing the Turkish Empire
as a Mohammedan.
The creation of a Serbian Patriarchate did not,
however, abolish the Archbishopric of Ohrida, although
the extent of its jurisdiction was reduced by having
some of its dioceses annexed to the newly-created Pa
triarchate of Ipek. This Patriarchate subsisted till the
year 1766, when it was abolished by a decree of the
Sultan and its dioceses were placed under the jurisdic
tion of the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople.
We know very little of the internal organization of
the Bulgarian and Serbian national churches during
their existence as self-governed or autocephalous in
stitutions. The presumption is that they in no way
differed in their hierarchical constitution from the oth
er churches belonging to the Eastern Orthodox con
fession. As in Byzantium, so among the Bulgarians
and Serbians, the Tsar or ruler was considered the de
fender and propagator of the faith. The Church was
the handmaid of the State, Patriarchs or Archbishops
were deposed or elevated to the throne by the ruler's
order. By his command also ecclesiastical councils
were convoked, over which either he in person presided
or delegated this office to the Patriarch or Archbishop.

42 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
The decisions of these councils were promulgated as
laws by a royal decree, and the secular authorities
were charged with their execution. The tendency of
the Bulgarian and Serbian Kings, as soon as they felt
themselves strong enough to assert their political in
dependence or by their conquests to gain supremacy
over the Peninsula, was to declare also the ecclesias
tical independence of their kingdoms. As the recog
nition of a national church by the Greek Patriarch
could as a rule be obtained only under stress of cir
cumstances or by compulsion, ecclesiastical self-gov
ernment was secured by an order of the sovereign, or
by having recourse to the Pope of Rome, whose sanc
tion, though that of a schismatic prelate, was deemed
sufficient and valid. That is one of the strangest
things in the history of these Balkan peoples. Although
the churches had already separated and they were
all the time at daggers drawn with each other,
these kings, if they could not get what they wanted
from Constantinople, from the Patriarchate, would
send a delegation to Rome and ask the Pope for it.
Although the Pope in the eyes of the Eastern Ortho
dox Church and its adherents was a rank heretic, he
would be asked to grant these patriarchal privileges.
Both King and church expressed a desire for union
with this Roman church and repeatedly promised to
recognise Papal supremacy, but these promises were
never fulfilled. They were mere subterfuges to gain
recognition of the royal dignity for the secular head of
the State, and the Patriarchal or Archbishop's rank
for the head of the church. These kings of Serbia

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 43
and Bulgaria were up to European diplomacy of the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, making promises
and never keeping them. It thus came to pass that
in spite of the various attempts made by the Popes
to draw the Bulgarians and Serbians into a union
with the Roman Church, they have remained members
of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Roman Catholicism
succeeded in penetrating and maintaining itself chiefly
among the Croats and in Dalmatia. The few Catho
lics among the Bulgarians of to-day — about 30,000
in all — owe their conversion to a much later period,
namely, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The
majority of them belonged not to the Eastern Ortho
dox Church, but to a heretical sect, known under the
name of Bogomils, which had a great affinity with the
sect of the Paulicians, and even now, though Catho
lics, are called in Bulgaria Paulicians.
It is very strange that they have retained the name
of this old sect, which was really an Armenian sect,
starting first in Armenia and then coming over to the
Balkan Peninsula.
The abolition of the Serbian Patriarchate of Ipek
in 1766 and of the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrida
the following year placed both Serbians and Bulga
rians under the direct spiritual jurisdiction of the
Greek Patriarch of Constantinople. All dioceses in
Church affairs were administered by Greek bishops and
it was a rare exception that a Bulgarian or a Serbian
was appointed a bishop. As the Patriarch and the
bishops acted as the official representatives of the Chris
tians before the central government in Constantinople

44 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
and the provincial authorities, the Bulgarians and the
Serbians in the Turkish Empire had no representatives
of their own race, but were represented by Greeks.
The Patriarch, by charter granted to him by Sultan
Mehemet, the conqueror of Constantinople, in 1453,
has the rank of the highest Pasha or a Vizier in the
Ottoman Empire, and bishops also have civil ranks
corresponding to the administrative hierarchy of the
Ottoman Empire. So that really they are considered
as officials of the government and in many receptions
at the palace or on state occasions the Patriarch has
the precedence over several Turkish officials.
All writers on the subject, some of them Greeks,
agree in describing as most pitiable the condition of
the Greek Church under Turkish rule. All offices
from the highest to the lowest were sold to the highest
bidder; and on account of that the patriarchal throne
was sometimes occupied by men who were a disgrace
not only to religion but to morality. One of the few
non-Greeks who occupied it was a Serbian ; but he was
such a confirmed drunkard that it is said that even
when he officiated in the church he had to be supported
by two deacons, because he was so drunk he could
hardly stand on his feet.
The bishops were as a rule men of low character,
greedy and avaricious, bent upon extorting money
from the lower clergy and their Christian flock under
various forms and pretexts. Besides, especially since
the beginning of the last century, a regular system of
hellenization among the non-Greek populations was
begun and zealously pursued. This process of helleni
zation and denationalization was greater in Bulgaria

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 45
than in Serbia. The latter country by its geographi
cal position was not in immediate contact with Greeks.
Across the river Save on Hungarian territory there
was a large Serbian population, living under the spir
itual jurisdiction of a Patriarch and enjoying church
and school privileges.
That is another thing which is a puzzle for out
siders who do not know the history of these churches.
Serbia before the war was an independent kingdom,
but the chief of the Serbian Church was never called
a Patriarch. The Serbian Church was ruled by a
Synod, over which the Metropolitan or Archbishop of
Belgrade, as living in the capital of the kingdom, pre
sided, and he had the place of honor in regard to the
other bishops. But across the River Save, on Hun
garian territory, in the little town of Carloftsi, there
lived the chief of the Serbian Orthodox Christians,
and this man was called a Patriarch. He had a higher
rank than the man who was at the head of the Church
in Serbia. The explanation is: About the end of
the seventeenth century a large part of Serbia and
also of what is called Old Serbia was occupied by
Austrian troops, and they held it for several years.
Afterwards they were obliged to retrocede this coun
try to the Turks, and they persuaded the Patriarch of
Ipek or Petch, of whom I have spoken, to emigrate
with as many Christians as wanted to emigrate and
come over to Austria, promising him that he should
retain his title. They gave him all the privileges and
prerogatives of a Patriarch. It is said that about
thirty thousand families emigrated at one time, going
over to Hungary and settling there, and he had the

46 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
title of Patriarch, which he bears to this day. What
will happen under Yugo-Slavia, of course, I do not
know; whether he will be allowed to retain his title
or whether the Metropolitan of Belgrade will be raised
to the rank of a Patriarch. But it is really very curious
that the Serbians under Hungarian rule should have
had for the chief of their Church a man called by the
title of Patriarch, while independent Serbia did not
have a Patriarch.
Communications and relations with this population
across the Rive Save were never entirely broken off
by the Serbians in Serbia proper. When by the treaty
of Adrianopl© of 1829 between Turkey and Russia,
Serbia was recognized as an autonomous province un
der the suzerainty of the Sultan, an agreement was
made with the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople,
by the terms of which the Prince and the people of
Serbia were allowed to choose their own bishops with
out any interference on the part of the Patriarch. The
archbishop of Belgrade, with the title of Metropolitan
of all Serbia, was, as primus interpares, appointed head
of the church, taking precedence of the other bishops.
The chosen Metropolitan was not to be obliged to
go to Constantinople and receive consecration from
the Patriarch. The latter was merely informed of
the choice and expected to send his approval in
writing. For the election of the other bishops the
Patriarch's consent was not necessary. Serbia paid to
the Patriarch a certain fixed sum of money as com
pensation or remuneration. This arrangement lasted
till 1879, when the Patriarch was induced to recognize

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 47
the complete independence of the Serbian Church, and
ceased to have any concern with its administration.
In Bulgaria, which up to 1878 remained a simple
Turkish province without any political rights, the jur
isdiction of the Greek Patriarch and bishops was main
tained intact and absolute. The various excessive tolls
levied upon the people by the Greek bishops were the
least objectionable part of their rule, although, taken
in connection with the heavy taxes and extortions of
the Turkish Government and officials, they must have
weighed pretty heavily on the people.
The bishops raised these tolls for all sorts of things.
If you wanted a prayer said for your dead father or
mother, you had to pay so much. If a man wanted
to be ordained a priest he had to pay the regular
price. A couple could not be married unless they paid
so much for a license and the performance of the mar
riage ceremony. The reason was that the bishops had
to buy their bishoprics by paying the Patriarch; the
Patriarch had to buy his place by paying the Turkish
officials, and as the Turkish officials increased their
price the Patriarchs had to increase theirs, and the
bishops naturally had to impose heavier burdens upon
the clergy and the people. So the whole thing was
based upon graft.
What was infinitely more obnoxious and menacing
was the proscription of the Bulgarian language in the
schools and of the Slavic liturgy in the churches. The
Bulgarians were called and treated as blockheads, their
language was considered as barbarous, and everything
Bulgarian was despised. In the towns of Bulgaria

48 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Greek schools only were tolerated, and every more or
less educated Bulgarian, imbued with the spirit of
Greek learning, was ashamed to call himself a Bulga
rian, but prided himself on being a Greek.
In conjunction with the Turkish authorities, which
were under their influence, the Greek bishops offered
a strong opposition to the opening of Bulgarian
schools. They even went further in their anti-Bulga
rian propaganda, and sought to destroy every vestige
of Bulgarian literature. There are well-authenticated
cases of the burning or otherwise destroying of old
Bulgarian manuscripts and books. The Russian his
torian and philologist, Grigorovitch, who traveled in
1844-45 in the Balkan Peninsula for the purpose of
scientific research, reports that at Mount Athos eye
witnesses told him how piles of old Bulgarian codices
and books were thrown into the sea, while others were
being used as fuel for the stoves. The same writer re
lates that in his travels he rarely met with a person
who could read Bulgarian or Church-Slavic, and almost
no one could express himself in writing in his ver
nacular except in the Greek script.
I myself had an uncle who was educated in these
schools and who to the time of his death could never
write a letter in Bulgarian characters, but always
used to write Bulgarian with Greek characters.
The reaction against this process of hellenization
among the Bulgarians came from a monk in Mount
Athos, a native of Macedonia, who, as he himself says,
inspired by an ardent love for his people and his
country, composed and circulated in manuscript a
short history of the Bulgarian people. "I have written

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 49
it," he says, "for you, who love your people, your coun
try and your language, that it might profit you and
stimulate your national dignity." Then in sharp re
buke he apostrophizes those who learn to read and
speak Greek, and says: "0 fools! why are you ashamed
to call yourselves Bulgarians, and why do you not
read and speak your own language?" In reminding his
fellow-countrymen of the former history of the Bul
garians, in presenting in a rather exaggerated form the
prominent positions their ancestors in days of yore had
occupied among the other Slavs, the book prepared the
way for the Bulgarian national rebirth. This move
ment of necessity assumed a literary and church char
acter, for it was directed towards the emancipation of
the national language and consciousness from Greek
influence, which was exerted chiefly through the school
and the church. It is very significant that the people
of Macedonia, the Bulgarian character of which has
in recent years been called in question, were the first
pioneers in this movement. It is really from there,
where Greek influence was supposed to be the strong
est, that the so-called Greco-Bulgarian church ques
tion was started. Some have asserted that it was a
wrangle between Greeks and Bulgarians about priests
and bishops. That is a very superficial view of the
question, for it was more than that: it was a struggle
by which a people, sunk in deep ignorance and ob
livion, sought to vindicate its rights to existence and
self-determination as a nation.
The original demands of the Bulgarians addressed
to the Greek Patriarch were that bishops appointed to
Bulgarian dioceses should be Bulgarians or persons

50 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
conversant with the language of the people; that
church services should be conducted in the Church-
Slavic language, and that the opening of schools with
Bulgarian as the language of instruction should not
be prohibited. The obstinate refusal of the Greek
Patriarchate to listen to these modest demands, in
creased the popular agitation and indignation, and
as the dispute dragged its weary length, the demands
of the Bulgarians culminated in asking for a separate
national church administration. After almost forty
years of struggle, the Turkish Sultan, to whom the
Bulgarians had appealed for a settlement of the ques
tion, granted in 1870 a charter for the constitution of
a Bulgarian church administration, under the name
of Bulgarian Exarchate. The chief of the newly con
stituted Bulgarian church was to bear the name of
Exarch, who with a Synod of bishops and a mixed
Council of clericals and laymen was to administer the
church. The statutes elaborated by representatives of
the people for the government of the church were
based upon democratic principles, allowing popular
elections for all ecclesiastical offices — a privilege, which
Bulgarians had never enjoyed under the rule of the
Patriarch. In all matters of religion, church dogmas
or doctrines, the exarch is subject to the Patriarch, so
that, strictly speaking, the Bulgarian church was not
entirely independent of the Patriarchate.
The democratic principles which the authors of these
statutes of the first Bulgarian church tried to push
through were so liberal that they wanted even to have
the Exarch chosen every four years, which is contrary
to the ecclesiastical rules of the church. A man once

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 51
appointed a Patriarch, a Bishop or an Archbishop must
remain and die in that office, unless he does something
to deserve excommunication. I remember very well
when the statutes were presented to the Turkish Grand
Vizier and he read this article providing that the Ex
arch was to be chosen every four years, he smiled and
said, "Are you choosing an Exarch, or are you choos
ing a President of the United States?"
The Patriarch, however, refused to recognize the
Sultan's charter and the reason for his refusal was the
tenth article of the charter. After enumerating the
dioceses, mostly in North Bulgaria, which the Ex
archate was to include, and to the inclusion of which
the Patriarch had already consented, this article pro
vided that in other dioceses a census would be taken,
and wherever the total Christian population or two-
thirds of it expressed a desire to join the Exarchate,
they would be allowed to do so. This article had in
view dioceses in Thrace and Macedonia, which, ac
cording to the contention of the Greek Patriarch, were
not inhabited by Bulgarians, and it proved a stum
bling-block to his accepting the Sultan's decision.
After trying in vain for two years to have the charter
revoked or its objectionable tenth article eliminated,
the Patriarch convoked in 1872 a local church council
in Constantinople, composed exclusively of Greek prel
ates, and declared the Bulgarian church schismatic.
The Council did not invite or permit the Bulgarians to
appear and state their case. The sentence of excom
munication ran thus: "We blame, condemn and de
clare contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and to
the sacred canons of the blessed Fathers ethnophylet-

52 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
ism, to wit, racial distinctions and national discussions
in the bosom of the Church of Christ." The Bulga
rians were declared schismatics, then, not because they
had changed any dogma or doctrine of the Eastern
orthodox church, but simply because they had asked
to have a clergy of their own nationality and language,
capable of preaching and expounding to them the Gos
pel and the teachings of the Fathers of the Church in
a language intelligible to them. In their original de
mands they showed themselves ready to accept even
Greeks as bishops, provided they were acquainted with
the Bulgarian language. The Patriarch, on the other
hand, in refusing to accede to this legitimate demand,
exposed himself to the charge of upholding "racial dis
tinctions," by insisting upon Greeks only having the
right and privilege of being bishops. Besides, in Rus
sia, Serbia, Montenegro, Rumania and Greece, there
were national churches administering themselves, and
yet not guilty of any schism. That the proclamation
of the Bulgarian schism was justified neither by the
teaching of the Gospel nor by the sacred canons of the
church Fathers, but was only a subterfuge is best
shown by the invitation which the Greek Patriarchate
has recently sent to the Bulgarian church, asking it to
send delegates to a church Council to be convoked
by the Patriarch.
The introduction of Christianity among the Slavs
of the Balkan Peninsula and the construction of an
alphabet had for a natural consequence the beginning
and development of a Slavic literature. A Bulgarian
writer of the first quarter of the tenth century informs
us that the heathen Slavs had no books, but made use

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 53
of lines and notches in writing. What these lines and
notches were is unknown, as no documents of such
characters have been found. Those Slavs who became
Christians before the second half of the ninth century
were wont to write for many years their language with
Greek and Latin characters; but as the Greek and
Latin alphabets are wanting in letters expressing
sounds peculiar to the Slavic tongue (as, e. g., ch in
chin, sh in shop, z in azure, etc.), the method of such
writing was unsatisfactory and full of irregularities.
"Then," to use the words of the pious monk, "God, in
his mercy and kind providence, raised up Constantine
the philosopher, called also Cyril, who made for the
Slavs an alphabet of thirty-eight letters, and together
with his elder brother, . Methodius, translated into
Slavic the Holy Scriptures and church books." Of all
European alphabets that I know of, the Slavic is the
richest in separate characters for expressing various
sounds, and that is perhaps why Slavs are such good
linguists — they can learn languages so easily.
There are two Slavic alphabets, the Glagolitic and
the Cyrillic (which bears the name of its author), in
which manuscripts have come down to us. Both of
them are formed on the pattern of the Greek alphabet,
with the addition of some letters to designate sounds
peculiar to the Slavs. The letters of the glagolitic
alphabet, which was long ago superseded by the Cyril
lic, have a peculiar formation, resembling the Coptic
or the Armenian alphabet; those of the Cyrillic, which
to this day is in use among all the Slavs who belong
to the Eastern Orthodox Church (that is, the Russian,
Serbian, Bulgarian and Montenegrin), are the exact

54 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
copy of the twenty-four letters of the Greek alphabet
plus fourteen letters to represent particular Slavic
sounds. The language in which the translation of the Holy
Scriptures and Church books was made in the ninth
century is generally spoken of in ancient writings as
"Slovenish" (Slovenish), and sometimes as Bulgarian.
The generally accepted opinion now is that it was the
language of the Slavs in Macedonia, which did not
much differ from that spoken by the Slavs or Bulga
rians north of the Balkans. As this language served
primarily for church purposes, which it does even now,
it is often called by modern writers church Slavic,
while other writers speak of it as old-slovenish or old-
Bulgarian. The latter term is due to the fact that it
was among the Bulgarians that this language became
first a literary language.
The Bulgarian literature, the first among the Slavs
of the Balkan Peninsula, was developed soon after the
introduction of Christianity, namely in the tenth cen
tury. The writers were exclusively churchmen, and
their productions bore the character of religious works,
intended to confirm the people in Christian faith, piety
and morality. These productions were translations
from Greek originals, which they servilely follow, and
owing to the translators' defective knowledge of Greek
are not infrequently rather obscure in meaning. From
a philological or linguistic point of view they are no
doubt very interesting; but from the standpoint of na
tional literature they are of little value. They throw
no light upon the fife, the history or the character of
the people, and that is why we possess hardly any in-

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 55
formation from native sources about the internal con
ditions of Bulgaria in the tenth and subsequent cen
turies. But such as it was, this Bulgarian hterature
served as the source and model for the Serbian and
Russian hteratures, which appeared much later. As
the differences between the Bulgarian, Serbian and
Russian languages were not so great then as they are
now, the Bulgarian manuscripts were freely copied,
with very slight modifications in orthography, by
Serbian and Russian writers. Sometimes the copies
did not change even the orthography, because every
church book was considered sacred, and therefore it
had to be copied exactly as its prototype is.
Christianity was officially introduced into Russia in
988, 125 years after its introduction into Bulgaria, and
there can be no doubt that the Slavic liturgy and other
church books, together with some clericals, found their
way into Russia from Bulgaria. In fact, all that we
know of the productions of the old Bulgarian litera
ture from the tenth to the fifteenth century, when Bul
garia lost its political independence to the Turks, we
know from the copies that were made in Russia and
have been preserved in the Russian libraries. These
copies bear unmistakable signs in orthography of their
Bulgarian origin. In speaking of the literary and
church relations between Russians and Bulgarians up
to the fifteenth century, the late Professor Lamansky
of the St. Petersburg University says: "During all that
time Russia constantly received from Bulgaria not only
Slavic manuscripts, but also spiritual fathers, writers,
artists, church cantors, because Bulgaria up to its
downfall in respect to its spiritual enlightenment and

56 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
State development stood incomparably higher than
Russia at that time."
Beside the literature approved by the State and
church for its orthodoxy, there arose in Bulgaria in
the tenth century an unorthodox literature, which
spread into Russia, Serbia and other neighboring coun
tries. It also was derived from Greek sources, from
the so-called apocryphal books. Many of the super
stitions and popular beliefs that still survive among
the Bulgarians, Russians and Serbians are due to this
literature, and there is a strong presumption in favor
of the influence it has exerted upon some of the Rus
sian sects. The zealous propagators of this hterature
were the Bogomils, a sect that first appeared in Bul
garia in the tenth century, and from there spread to
other countries, even to Italy and France, where they
were known by the name of Cathari, Poblicani, Chris-
tiani, etc. The modern Waldenses are supposed to be
the descendants of the Albigenses or the Cathari, who
were the representatives of Bogomilism in France and
Italy. The Bogomils had great affinity with the sect of the
Paulicians and like them were a dualistic sect, believ
ing in two principles: God the creator of the invisible
and Satan of the visible world. They rejected the Old
Testament, except the Psalms, as a production of the
Evil One, and of the New Testament they honored the
Gospel of St. John the most. They rejected the wor
ship of images, the incarnation of Christ, the church
hierarchy, the feasts and fasts of the Church, the erec
tion of churches or altars as places of worship, and it
is said that they used to pray anywhere, wherever they

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 57
happened to be. If we may believe the reports of some
of their enemies the Bogomils were anarchists in their
social and political tendencies. "They teach," says one
of their opponents, "their adherents not to obey the
rulers, to speak evil of the rich, to hate fathers, to re
vile elders, to rail at the nobles; they think that all
who serve the King are an abomination to God, and
they tell every servant not to work for his master."
Serbian literature did not begin till late in the
twelfth century and the oldest church Slavic manu
script of Serbian recension is a Gospel, written in the
Cyrillic alphabet for a Serbian prince, towards the end
of that century. The establishment of a Serbian arch
bishopric in the thirteenth century helped the develop
ment of a literature, the language of which, however,
was the church Slavic. Like the Bulgarian literature
which it copied, the Serbian literature had an ecclesi
astical or religious character. The books which were
used in the church services were the same, and the
literary relations between the two countries were so
close that some writers, Bulgarians by birth, have pro
duced works that by right belong to the Serbian lit
erature. The Serbians have been more fortunate in
having had writers who strove after the creation of a
literature with national tendencies. In this litera
ture we meet with chronicles, which in a very succinct
form tell of national events; biographical sketches of
Serbian Kings and saints, which have considerable
value in the reconstmction of Serbian history. Such
productions are lacking in the Bulgarian hterature, or,
if they ever existed, they have been irretrievably lost.
With the establishment of Turkish rule in Bulgaria

58 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
towards the beginning of the fifteenth century, all lit
erary activity ceased. Learned men fled from the coun
try or found an untimely death in banishment and im
prisonment. The utter intellectual degradation of the
country and the absence of any literature is best
shown by the fact that during the sixteenth century
only two small books — a Psalter and a prayer-book —
are mentioned as having been printed in Venice. In
the following century only one little prayer-book, in
tended for the use of Bulgarian Catholics and com
posed in a mongrel Croato-Bulgarian language, ap
peared printed in Rome. In the first half of the sev
enteenth century, a prince of Wallachia (a part of
Eastern Roumania) requested the Catholic mission
in Bulgaria to send him a Bulgarian to supervise the
printing of some works in the Bulgarian language.
The mission sent him a Croat, because they could not
find anyone in Bulgaria who was fit for the work. Bul
garia, which had formerly supplied Russia with
church books, began now to receive such books from
Russia, because in Bulgaria there was not a single
printing press. During the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries these books, written originally in the Slavo-
Bulgarian language, underwent in Russia a modifica
tion in orthography in order to assimilate them more
to the Russian language and pronunciation. These
books, so corrected, are in use in the churches of all
Eastern Orthodox Slavs to-day and their language is
known as church Slavic.
Literature among the Serbians in Serbia proper,
which was under the direct rule of the Turks, was not
much better, especially before the eighteenth century.

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 59
It is really from the beginning of that century that a
movement for the promotion of Serbian enlightenment
and literature is noticeable. The center of that move
ment, however, was not in Serbia, but among the Ser
bians of Austria, who, as I have already remarked, en
joyed church privileges under a Patriarch of their own.
Sustained relations between this Patriarch and Rus
sia existed and young Serbians were sent to Russia to
be educated and prepared for entering the teaching or
the clerical profession. Russia supplied not only the
church books, but also Russian text-books for the
schools. For the college or gymnasium at Carloftsi,
where the Patriarch resided, Russian teachers were
procured, and under their influence and that of the
Russian literature a so-called Slavo-Serbian language
was formed which became also the literary language of
the Serbian writers of those days. This language was
more Russian or church Slavic in its elements than
Serbian, and quite foreign to the language spoken by
the people. The literature was accessible only to a
few learned men, while it was unintelligible to the
mass of the people. It was towards the beginning of
the nineteenth century that Serbian literature began
a struggle for national self-assertion in the popular
vernacular. The credit for this movement is due to
two men, remarkable as men of practical good-sense,
of whom the Serbians are justly proud. One of them,
Obradovitch, was a monk of an open and inquisitive
mind, broad and liberal views, seldom to be found in
men of his class. He declared himself opposed to the
hterature produced by the Slavo-Serbian school, and
maintained that for a hterature to be helpful to a

60 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
nation it must be written in the language of the peo
ple. His successor and pupil, Karadjitch, a layman
and a self-made man of genius, took up the fight where
his predecessor had left it, and in spite of a most
violent opposition on the part of the Slavo-Serbian,
party, carried the struggle to a successful issue. He
simplified the orthography of the Serbian language,
which formerly was unnecessarily cumbersome and
difficult, and made its spelling the most phonetic
among the Slavic languages. By the adoption of the
popular language as that of the literature and by the
reformation of its orthography, Serbian literature
freed itself from the shackles which hindered its ad
vancement and has steadily progressed. It has pro
duced writers of no mean repute in almost all branches
of literary pursuits.
In Bulgaria there was no occasion for such a hard
struggle on the part of the popular language for pre
dominance in literature. While it is true that the few
writers who appeared in the first half of the nineteenth
century used in their writings a mixture of church
Slavic and Bulgarian, the difference between the writ
ten and spoken language was not as great as it was
among the Serbians. In the formation of a Bulgarian
literary language, the Russian language and literature
have had considerable part. Most of the writers who
have been responsible for its formation were men who
had been educated in Russia; but in their imitation
of the Russian they never went so far as the Serbian
writers of the Slavo-Serbian school did. This is espe
cially true of the writers who began their literary ac
tivity in the second half of the last century. Since

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 61
then the tendency has been to divest the literary lan
guage from any Russicisms and place it upon a more
national basis. Very little change has been made in
the orthography of the language, so that between the
Serbian and Bulgarian, in their relation to the Rus
sian literary language, the Bulgarian comes the near
est. A Russian can more easily read and understand
a Bulgarian than a Serbian book or newspaper. In
regard to literary productions, the Bulgarian people
may well be proud of what they have accomplished,
seeing that a forward and intensive literary activity
among them began only after their political emanci
pation in 1878. In none of its productions does the
Bulgarian literature lag behind that of Serbia.
Within the limited time assigned to this paper I
have tried to cover a great deal of ground. The sketch
that I have attempted to give of the Church organiza
tion and the literature of the Serbians and Bulgarians
had of necessity to be concise, touching upon the most
important and, what seemed to me, the most interest
ing points of the subject. Before I conclude, I would
like to say a few words upon the position the Church
occupies in the Near East, which may correct some
misapprehension on the subject.
It is repeatedly asserted that in the Near East re
ligion is politics and that nationality and religion are
one and the same thing.
From 1453, when with the capture of Constanti
nople Turkish rule was definitely established in the
Near East, the church has been under the official con
trol of a ruler, alien to it in race, religion, language
and sentiment. In the eyes of the Turkish govern-

62 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
ment and every Turk the people of the Empire were
divided into two classes: the faithful or Mussulmans
and the infidels or ghiaours. The government took no
cognizance of nationalities, for Islam recognizes no
national distinctions; it knows only of believers, who
accept its doctrines, and unbelievers, who reject them.
Every Christian was an unbeliever, and if he was al
lowed to five under a church organization of his own,
that was an act of mercy, due to the generosity of the
Sultan. Europeans, living in the empire but not Turk
ish subjects, had their respective States to protect
them. This protection in the course of time assumed
large proportions. The poor Christians who were
Turkish subjects had no such protection from outside.
The only protection, frail and unavaihng as a rule,
vouchsafed to them was by the Church, whose hier
archy enjoyed a certain official standing with the Turk
ish government and the foreign Powers. The Church,
then, had to occupy itself with politics, for every ap
peal or protest it made against Turkish mismle,
whether made to the Turkish Sultan or to foreign
Powers, was interwoven with politics. The very inter
relation between Turks and Christians, between mas
ters and subjects, gave to every action of the Church
in behalf of the latter, a political as well as a religious
character. Once this interrelation is removed, the
Church has no reason to play politics, as we see it in
all the Balkan States that have been freed from Turk
ish rule.
As the Turk had nothing in common with the Chris
tian, the latter looked upon him with deep aversion
not only as his oppressor, but also as an enemy of his

CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND LITERATURE 63
faith. Any Christian, who became a convert to Mo
hammedanism, was considered a renegade, and as re
ligion was the only distinction between a Turk and a
Christian, a traitor to his nationality. Such a newly-
converted Mohammedan became ipso facto a Turk,
and, as it happens very often with renegades, a worse
enemy of the Christian. This view was transferred,
by popular logic, to other conversions, as for example
to a man becoming a Catholic or a Protestant, who was
also looked upon as untrue to his religion and nation.
It is right to say, however, that as people in the Near
East advance in education and gain a better under
standing of the difference between religion and na
tionality, this view is on the wane, and among some
of them has entirely disappeared. In Bulgaria, for
example, no Bulgarian is treated nowadays as an alien
to his nationality, because he has left the national
church. Nor are a man's religious convictions or be
liefs a barrier to his being accepted in the government
employ, in the army or elected as deputy in the na
tional parliament. If the truth were to be told, it is
among the Greeks that the opinion of religion and na
tionality is still prevalent. In their opinion, every one
who is under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Greek
Patriarch or bishop, attends services in a Greek church
and has recourse to the spiritual ministrations of a
Greek priest, is a Greek. The second article of the
first Greek constitution of 1822 is said to have run as
follows: "All the inhabitants of Greece who believe in
Jesus Christ are Hellenes." This strange conception
owes its origin, no doubt, to the time when all the
Christians of the Balkan Peninsula, no matter to what

64 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
race they belonged, were subject to the Greek Patri
arch and passed before the Turkish government and
the outside world as Christians, hence Greeks. The
two terms were interchangeable. Even as late as the
first quarter of the last century, Russia, which posed
as the protector of the orthodox Christians of Turkey,
made and knew of no national distinctions among
them. In all official documents, especially those prior
to the nineteenth century, they are spoken of either
as Christians or Greeks. I am glad to say that this
mixing of religion with nationality has never found
favor with the Bulgarians. There were a number of
Vlach and Albanian communities in Macedonia which
recognized the authority of the Bulgarian Exarch, but
no one ever has claimed them as Bulgarians. On the
contrary, full liberty was granted to them to have their
own churches with their own priests, and to use in their
churches and schools their national language.

Lecture III.
EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST SINCE THE
CAPTURE OF CONSTANTINOPLE IN 1453.
In the last lecture I spoke about the church rela
tions existing between the various nations of the Bal
kan Peninsula. In this evening's paper I wish to give
you an idea of the educational relations which have
existed among the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula.
It is generally supposed that the capture of Con
stantinople by the Turks in 1453 and the fall of the
Byzantine Empire affected unfavorably popular school
education among the Christians in the Near East. We
know that one of the consequences of the fall of Con
stantinople was the dispersion of Byzantine learned
men, who fled from the city to other parts of Europe,
carrying with them Greek classical learning. But
while the establishment of Turkish rule in Byzantium
and the Balkan Peninsula had a blighting effect upon
inteUectual development and literary activity, we do
not know to what extent it affected popular education.
In order to be able to judge of the effect that Turkish
domination had upon the public schools and the popu
lar education of the Christians of the Empire, one
ought to know what the public school system and the
degree of popular education in the Byzantine Empire
were. Unfortunately, the data upon which such a
65

66 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
judgment and comparison could be based are practi
cally wanting.
Byzantine historians have given us considerable in
formation about the higher institutions of learning in
the Empire. As early as the first quarter of the fifth
century, Emperor Theodosius founded a university in
Constantinople, which in the time of Emperor Jus
tinian is said to have had twenty-eight professors of
Greek and Latin hterature, one of philosophy, two of
law and some others of theology. Besides this uni
versity there were similar institutions in Athens, Bey-
rut, Antioch, Alexandria and other places, which grad
ually sank into insignificance as Constantinople be
came the center of all literary and educational move
ment. A special system of education was provided for the
Emperor's daughters and sons, especially the heir to
the throne. Rich families, which could afford to pay
for private teachers, had their sons educated at home,
or they sent them to some famous educator, whose
house became the school for a limited number of pu
pils, or to one of the many monasteries in the city,
where some learned monk took charge of their educa
tion. Learning was principally concentrated in the
monasteries, and most of the learned men of Byzan
tium were monks or priests. Several of them attained
to a high rank in the civil administration or at the
imperial court. There were not a few laymen who
were renowned for their erudition, as, for example, the
Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Patriarch
Photius, who was suddenly raised from a layman to
the highest rank in the Greek church, Constantine,

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 67
better known by the name of Cyril, the Slavic Apostle,
and the author of the Slavic alphabet, which is in
use to this day among the Slavs of the Eastern Ortho
dox profession.
The silence of the Byzantine historians about public
schools or popular education warrants the conclusion
that they either did not exist or, if they did exist, they
were of such a low standard as not to deserve any spe
cial notice. While it may be true, as a modern his
torian remarks, that "illiteracy was considered a re
proach among respectable people," we may take it for
granted that education among the mass of the people
was negligible. Some monk in his cell in a monastery,
or some priest in some room attached to a church, may
have collected a few children to give them a rudi
mentary instmction. Such children were destined to
enter the clerical profession, to take part in the chant
ing of church hymns and the reading of the Psalter,
Scripture lessons or some prayers used in the church
service. The education that these pupils received must
have been purely ecclesiastical of the most elementary
kind, namely, to enable them to read the church books
and rarely to write. If this view of Byzantine popular
education be correct, we may safely assert that the
Turkish conquest, as we shall see, made no difference
in the school system of the Christians of the Near East.
Whether impelled by a spirit of tolerance or actu
ated by motives of policy, Sultan Mehemed the Con
queror (or as he is called also, Mahomet, but never by
the Turks, who always call him Mehemed, who cap
tured Constantinople, did not abolish the office of the
Greek Patriarch. Soon after he took possession of the

68 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
city he ordered that a Patriarch should be appointed
to the vacant Patriarchal throne, and as such he desig
nated a certain learned Greek by the name of George
Scholarios. He was duly consecrated with the usual
rites and ceremonies and on receiving him in an audi
ence the Sultan was very gracious to him and assured
him of his favor and good-will. Presenting him with
a pastoral staff, he ordered him to go back to his offi
cial residence and take up his duties and functions as
the Head of the Church. By a charter granted to
him, the Patriarch's rights and privileges as well as
those of his bishops and clergy were recognized and
confirmed. It was very fortunate for the Christians in the Near
East that, in falling under the political sway of the
Turks, they were not deprived of their church organi
zation by the abolition of the Patriarchate. In his
capacity as the official representative of the Chris
tians, the Patriarch became their advocate and de
fender before the Sultan and his government. Among
his other duties, that of caring for the schools and the
education of the people became one of his preroga
tives. In this he was unhampered by the government,
for while the Turks seized many churches and con
verted them into mosques, they were indifferent to the
schools, owing to the little value they attached to them.
The right of the Patriarch and his bishops, granted to
them by the Sultan's charter, to supervise and control
the Christian schools, has subsisted to our own days.
Many and serious reproaches have been levelled at the
abuses that crept into the administration of the Greek
Patriarchate under the Turkish rule. Some of these

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 69
abuses were due to the unworthy and perverse charac
ter of some of the occupants of the Patriarchal throne,
while others are to be attributed to the political and
social environments in which the Patriarchal office was
exercised under a government totally alien to it in re
ligion, race and language. But in one respect great
credit is due to the Patriarchate, namely, that in re
maining the mainstay and defence of the Christian
religion, it was also the patron and leader of educa
tion among the Christians of the Near East.
The catastrophe that befell the Christians of the
Balkan Peninsula in the fifteenth century was so over
whelming that they could not explain it otherwise than
as a direct punishment of God for their sins. It is
not surprising that people who saw the Crescent vic
torious and the Cross vanquished, the followers of
Christ oppressed by those of Mohammed, should have
grown disheartened and apathetic to every other con
cern except that of preserving their lives and property,
both of which were at the mercy of their rulers. Even
the profession of their faith and religion was preca
rious and exercised under uncertain circumstances, for
it was only as an act of mercy on the part of the vic
tors that Christian churches existed. No Christian
community could be sure of its place of worship not
being seized and converted into a mosque. Schools
and education were the last thing that the people
thought of or cared for. Book learning was consid
ered appropriate only for the clergy, and even among
them it was of the most rudimentary kind. Modern
conceptions of education have undergone a great
change among the people of the Near East, but it was

70 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
not so very long ago that the saying current among
the people: "I do not intend to make a priest of him,"
was considered a sufficient excuse for parents not to
send their boys to school.
Very scanty is the information that we possess on
popular education in the Near East from the fall of
Constantinople to the seventeenth century. One of
the oldest schools of a higher grade is that which the
Greek Patriarch Gennadios, soon after the capture of
the capital by the Turks, established or restored — for
it may have existed before — as an adjunct to the
Greek Patriarchate. This school still exists in Con
stantinople under the special supervision and control
of the Patriarch and bears the name of "The Great
National School." Mention is made of similar schools
in the island of Chio and in the Peloponnesus, the
principal object of which was to prepare men for the
clerical profession, especially of the higher rank. But
the attendance at these schools was insignificant, as
we may judge from the fact that in 1550 there were
only ten students in the patriarchal school in Con
stantinople, ten in Peloponnesus and four in Chio.
How learning stood and how neglected it was in
those days is evidenced by a letter, written in 1550 by
the then director or principal of the school in Con
stantinople to a friend of his in Germany. In this
letter the writer bitterly complains of the extinction
of all sciences, arts and learning in the East and of
their having taken refuge in the West. Twenty-five
years later, Stefan Gerlach, who accompanied in his
quality as chaplain the Ambassador of the German
Emperor to Constantinople and spent several years in

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 71
the city, relates that one day he asked a high Greek
ecclesiastic if one could get any Greek books in the
city. The ecclesiastic told him that he knew of none.
To Gerlach's question if there were any learned men
among the Greek bishops and monks, the reply was:
"None, for we have neither schools nor teachers." In
his endeavor to ascertain the extent of learning and
the number of learned Greeks in Constantinople and
elsewhere in Turkey, Gerlach succeeded in compiling
a list of sixty-four persons only!
In order to give an impulse to education the Patri
arch and his Holy Synod issued in 1593 an ordinance
by which they enjoined "upon the bishop of every dio
cese to watch over public instruction and to make the
necessary expenses to the end that the sacred and di
vine letters should not cease to be taught." The bish
ops were also ordered to "come to the help of those
who wish to teach and of those who desire to learn,
but have not the means." How many bishops con
formed to this order of the Patriarchate, we do not
know; but as many of them, we may presume, were
not highly educated and cultured men nor great lovers
of secular education, very few of them probably gave
effect to the order. With the object of promoting edu
cation, the Patriarchate established in the seventeenth
century the first printing press in Constantinople.
These so-called high schools, which have just been
mentioned, were not, strictly speaking, colleges, but a
sort of mixed schools, in which side by side with higher
studies, as philosophy, theology, rhetoric and Greek
literature, there were also elementary and preparatory
classes. Of one of the directors of the Patriarchal

72 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
School in Constantinople, a man of erudition and tal
ents, who had studied in the University of Padua in
Italy, we are told that besides teaching the higher
branches of science he taught the boys the rudiments
of the Greek language.
The higher education given in the few superior in
stitutions of learning was accessible to a very limited
number of students. The teachers and the students in
these schools belonged to the clerical class or those who
were preparing themselves to enter it. Text-books were
scarce and the teachers were obliged to prepare in writ
ing their courses and have the students copy them, or
distribute one copy among many students. The diffi
culties attending this method of instmction are ob
vious, and the progress of the students must have been
greatly retarded thereby.
When we come to examine the primary education we
find conditions more deplorable. In the absence of spe
cially prepared teachers, the task of educating the
young generation devolved upon the priests and monks,
and in very rare cases upon laymen, who had succeed
ed in obtaining a smattering of education. No special
buildings for schools existed. In the monasteries boys
who had entered them as novices with the intention of
devoting themselves to monastic life were taught in
one of the cells. In the towns or larger villages where
there was a church the priest would gather a few boys
in one of the rooms attached to the church and give
them such instruction as it was in his power to impart.
These schools were known by the name of cloister or
cell schools. School appliances were wanting and the
only text-books that were ready at hand were church

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 73
books. Hence, the instruction given was limited to
enabling the pupils to read the prayer book, the Psal
ter, the "Apostle," by which is meant the Acts of the
Apostles and the Epistles— the church hymns and per
haps the lives of some saints. The pupils were also
required to commit to memory some of the church
prayers and psalms, and to this requirement is due the
name "Learn-by-heart-book" that even to-day the
Horologion or Prayerbook in Bulgaria bears.
Very few of the pupils acquired the art of writing,
while of secular learning some were taught the most
rudimentary elements of arithmetic, not venturing
most probably beyond addition and subtraction. His
tory, geography, not to mention any higher studies,
were ignored to such a degree that even high ecclesi
astics had a poor knowledge of them. In his A Jour
ney through Albania, published in the beginning of
the last century, J. C. Hobhouse tells us that a bishop
in Greece asked him if Spain, with which England
was at war at that time, was situated in the Baltic Sea!
The limitations or the absence of secular learning
is to be attributed not only to the inappreciation of it,
but also to the incapacity of the teachers to impart such
knowledge. The pupils who attended these cloisters
or cell schools were destined to enter the priestly ranks,
or, if they were to remain laymen, their highest ambi
tion was to become cantors or leaders in the church
singing. When a boy was advanced enough to read
at the public church service with all the proper intona
tion and variation of voice some portion of the Acts of
the Apostles or the Epistles, or to take part in the
chanting of the hymns in that drawling, nasal intona-

74 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
tion so peculiar to the Greek Church music, then he
was considered to have reached the acme of his school
education. His parents' hearts swelled with pride and
joy at the distinction their son had attained, and all
their friends and acquaintances congratulated them
on their good fortune to have begotten such a prodigy
of learning. In celebration of the auspicious occasion
that their son had finished his education and had been
admitted to be a reader in the church services, the par
ents gave a banquet to the teacher, attended by all
the relatives of the boy. The young graduate was
put in a chair and processionally carried into the room
of the banquet. At the door of the room he was raised
in his chair three times and his head bumped against
the lintel of the door, each bump being accompanied
with the shout, in Greek, of axios or "Worthy!" This
custom was called the enthronement of the young sa
vant and may be considered as the conferring of the
summa cum laude degree upon him. In recognition
of his services the teacher was presented with various
presents, as a handkerchief, a towel, a pair of socks or
a shirt by the boy's parents and relatives.
In the primary as well as in the superior schools
there was no uniform program of studies or method
of instruction. Each teacher was free to follow his
own method and make his own program. Neither
was there any time limit set to the course of study, as
it was left to the discretion of the teacher to determine
the fitness of the pupil to graduate. In the higher
schools the time period was determined by how much
of philosophy, theology, logic, rhetoric, grammar, etc.,
the professor was willing or ready to give. In the

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 75
primary or cloister schools the teacher, whose knowl
edge was generally hmited to the simple ability to
read, graduated a pupil when the latter had acquired
all that his master was capable of teaching him. The
object that the instruction had in view was not the
mental development of the pupil, the awakening and
strengthening of his reasoning faculties. To be able
to read — and the faster he could read the better pleased
the teacher felt — to commit to memory and recite par
rot-like the lesson without missing a word, although
not understanding what he recited, was all that was
expected of the pupil. If he happened to miss a word
or omit a sentence or phrase from his recitation, he
was condemned as having failed and had to repeat the
same lesson. Not unfrequently, such a failure brought
upon the poor pupil condign punishment at the hands
of the pedagogue, who considered severity as one of
the chief requirements of pedagogy.
The elementary schools, if we may call them by
that name, like those of a higher grade, were not very
numerous. In some of the principal towns such schools
most probably did exist, but the children of many a
village were deprived even of such a rudimentary in
struction. As there were no special buildings assigned
to these schools, the few pupils who attended them
were crowded into one room. In some places they sat
on benches with the teacher sitting in a comer of the
room on a stool or a chair. Most of the schools, how
ever, did not possess the luxury of benches-. Both the
teacher and the pupils sat on the floor on pieces of
carpets or skins, which they brought from home. If
the teacher happened to be a craftsman of a sedentary

76 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
occupation, such as a tailor, a furrier or a cobbler, he
plied his profession and at the same time watched over
his pupils, while they were studying their lessons. By
his side in a prominent place was a long switch, which
served as an incentive to the sluggard and a salutary
warning to the mischievous and which came into play
on the shghtest provocation.
In order to make sure that the pupils were studying
and not wasting their time in idle thoughts they were
required to read all aloud. There were no fixed hours
for recreation; that depended upon the good- will and
kind-heartedness of the teacher. Many teachers prob
ably looked upon such recreation as obnoxious to study
and damaging to the boy's character. Steady and con
tinued application was regarded as the best way of
keeping the young from falling into mischief. Instead
of giving the boys recess and allowing them to go
out and play, it was not unusual with many teachers
to make the children he down perfectly still and go
to sleep or pretend that they are asleep. This gave
the teacher an opportunity of having a breathing
spell and enjoying his siesta, for the school hours lasted
almost the whole day.
A French traveller who visited a preparatory school
in Athens in 1673 has left us a description of the meth
od of teaching which he witnessed. There were about
thirty boys in the school. Each boy held in his hands
a similar book and they were all required to read thirty
words of a continued paragraph, the first boy reading
only the first word, the second the second and so on in
order till all the thirty words were read. If each pupil
read correctly his word, the teacher made them read

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 77
other thirty words; but if any one of them made a
mistake in reading his word, the boy next to him took
up the missed word. In this way the attention of the
pupils was held upon what was being read, and an
emulation among them was developed, as each one
considered it a point of honor to correct his neighbor's
mistake, and the task of each individual pupil became
a common lesson. In order to prevent a pupil from
preparing himself only on the particular word that
was to come to him in his turn, the order in which the
pupils sat was not permanently fixed, but was fre
quently changed, so that a boy who at one lesson had
been placed first would be put at another lesson in a
different place. This method was also very practical
in providing only one lesson for a whole class, no mat
ter how large it may have been. It was very conven
ient for the teacher also, because instead of obliging
each one of the pupils to come in his turn to read the
lesson to him, it constituted each pupil a kind of
teacher to his classmate in correcting his mistakes.
As books were scarce, even primers being unobtain
able, the pupils had to start their education on tablets
made of bark, commonly called by the Greek word
pinakidia, on which the alphabet and the first reading
lessons were written. Such pinakidia were in use as
late as the first quarter of the last century. That
learning was considered a serious and arduous work
is exemplified by the fact that at the head of the alpha
bet or the primer and the other reading lessons a cross
was placed and the pupil was required to make the
sign of the cross ere he began to read, repeating at the
same time the words: "Cross of God, help me!" Con-

78 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
sidering the painful way in which, owing to the lack
of a rational method of instruction, the pupil was able
to acquire the elements of learning, very often taking
him days to learn the alphabet, and in view of the
punishment that was in store for him if he failed in
his recitation, the pupil was wise in imploring divine
assistance in the performance of his task.
The school discipline was maintained by inspiring
awe in the hearts of the pupils. The severer a teach
er was the better educator he was considered to be.
The punishments that were administered were harsh
and even barbarous, and the instruments of these pun
ishments were ever present before the eyes of the
pupils. The long switch placed by the seat of the
teacher was the most common, and in order to make
the punishment visible to the whole school, the cul
prit was made to get on the back of one of the bigger
and stronger pupils and then was castigated. Other
punishments were to make the boy stand before the
whole school, sometimes on one leg, with a placard
hung around his neck and inscribed with his misde
meanor, or make him sit in a kneeling posture. If the
teacher wished to make the pupil feel more forcibly
that the way of the transgressor was hard, he would
have pebbles or small stones put under his knees.
Sometimes, whether standing or kneeling, the boy
would be given a more or less heavy weight to hold up
in his hand. For very serious offences the culprit had
his face blackened with soot or charcoal and his school
mates were made to pass by him and spit on him; or
his bare feet were placed in a kind of stocks, called
phalanga, made of two pieces of wood tightly tied at

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 79
the ends, and as many blows applied as his miscon
duct in the opinion of the teacher deserved.
The moral principles that were inculcated upon the
minds of the pupils in these inferior schools were
equally rudimentary. The reading of the Psalter, the
prayer-book and other church books was supposed to
be conducive to the formation of a good, pious char
acter, in addition to the morality which the teacher's
punishments were intended to impress. What con
fused ideas this school instruction had upon this part
of education is well shown in the following song, which
the pupils used to sing after their daily task was end
ed and before they left the school to go home. After
an invocation to the Virgin Mary, the song went on
to say:
"My father I revere, my mother I venerate, and my
first brother and my sister. For all commandment
have love. Fear God, honor the King, venerate the
priests. An ilhterate man is a fruitless tree; hence,
that which has learning is more honorable than gold
and silver. And you, our good master, have a good
night, and for him who does not come early, if small,
twelve strokes of the switch, to the bigger twenty-
four, and to the monitor forty-eight, and two to boot
for a blessing, fifty. Amen! Amen! Amen!"
No improvement was made in these elementary
schools during the seventeenth and eighteenth cen
turies, as we can gather from descriptions of these
schools and the method of instmction given to us by
European travellers who visited them about the be
ginning of the last century. In the first quarter of
that century a turn for the better took place by the

80 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
introduction of the Lancasterian or monitorial or mu
tual method of instmction. This method was certainly
a great improvement upon the cloister or cell system,
although it also had the defect of not being very ex
peditious in the imparting of knowledge. It was quite
in vogue in those days in England and other parts of
Europe, and through the Greek schools, which adopted
it first, it was introduced into the schools of other
nations in the Near East. Through monitors or more
advanced pupils, who acted as his assistants, one
teacher was able to take charge of a whole school by
simply supervising and directing the instruction given
by the monitors. In view of the scarcity of teachers,
the Lancasterian method was very advantageous in
making it possible to have a larger number of pupils
gathered in a school and taught by one man. I began
my education by that system, and I remember very
well that the first thing that they made the newcomers
do was to begin to write with their fingers on sand.
Paper or slate were not in use, but we little ones used
to write on sand.
Beginning with the second half of the seventeenth
century the instruction given in the higher institu
tions of learning received a greater impulse. This was
due, first, to the introduction of the printing press,
whereby books became more general, and, second, to
the interest which Greek merchant communities, estab
lished in other parts of Europe, more especially in
Italy, began to take in the dissemination of learning
among their fellow-countrymen. With the funds sup
plied by them some good schools were founded in Jan-
nina, in Epirus, Athens, the island of Scio and other

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 81
places. Many young Greeks studied in the Italian
universities of Padua and Bologna, and on their re
turn home became teachers or zealous promoters of
education. Through the exertions of the Patriarch
and some Greek notables, who had succeeded in attain
ing to official positions in the Turkish government, Sul
tan Selim III, towards the end of the eighteenth cen
tury, granted official recognition to the Greek schools
and appointed a Greek to be their general superin
tendent. Among the Greeks who had a prominent part in
the promotion of learning, Alexander Mavrocordato
deserves special mention. He was a native of the
island of Scio and had received his medical education
in the University of Padua. On his return to Con
stantinople he was appointed physician to the Court
of the Sultan, and successively rose to the position
of Chief Dragoman or Interpreter and Privy Coun
cillor of the government. He founded several schools,
distributed among them textbooks composed by him,
as well as reprints of classics made at his expense.
Mavrocordato was. in favor of the ancient Greek
language and literature and like many other learned
Greeks of those days he considered the spoken lan
guage uncouth and barbarous. He occupied for seven
years the post of director or principal of the Patri
archal School in Constantinople, where he taught with
out any remuneration Greek literature, rhetoric, phil
osophy and sciences. One of his pupils, whom the
Greek church proclaimed as the most illustrious of
philosophers, in writing of Mavrocordato's services to
Greek learning, says: "Mavrocordato found the Chris-

82 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
tians of the city not only deprived of all philosophic
notions, but ignorant of Greek learning. He at once
organized an association of intelligent men. First of
all he bettered their manners conformably to the prin
ciples of moral philosophy. Then, like a good and
diligent paterfamilias he taught the Greek language
and philosophy. He also rendered immense services
to the Greek nation by imparting in a very short time
to his numerous hearers good and serious knowledge."
Another famous teacher of the eighteenth century
who deserves to be mentioned was Eugene Boulgaris.
As the founder of an academy in one of the monas
teries of Mount Athos and as the director of the Pa
triarchal School at Constantinople and that of Jan-
nina, he educated many young men and prepared them
to enter the ranks of the clergy or to become teachers.
His fame was so great that pupils, both Greeks and
of other nationalities, from far and near, came to at
tend his classes. Logic, grammar, rhetoric, philoso
phy, mathematics, theology, physics and the Greek
classics were taught by him, and in some of these
sciences he has left works composed or translated by
him. This program of studies carried by Boulgaris is a
good sample of the wide field of instmction that a
professor in those days had to coyer, without any as
sistants in his arduous task. The work of the pro
fessor was made harder not only because he lacked as
sistants, but also because proper textbooks were want
ing. The education received by the pupils, among
whom not unfrequently there were men of maturer age
than the college graduates of to-day, was scholastic

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 83
and there can be no doubt that many of the teachers
were pedants. A great deal of time was devoted to
grammar, the ancient Greek writers and the works of
the holy Fathers of the Church. The object in view
was to produce men who could imitate these ancient
writers in their style. The learning of words and the
ability to give various turnings to a sentence by em
ploying various synonyms, more or less appropriate
to the word that was to be explained, were the usual
grammatical and rhetorical exercises.
A writer, himself a professor but evidently of more
advanced ideas, in a work on pedagogy published in
1779 strongly attacks this system of teaching the lan
guage and grammar. He calls it "verbiage" and a
pure waste of time. "Why, oh man of letters!" he
says, "do you torment the student with subtleties and
futilities, by making him spend time which he could
devote to some other exercise of more use to him?
Why do you burden him with fifteen synonyms, every
one of which may have a proper meaning, since you
do not explain to him its meaning, and do not show
him the differences among them? Why do you teach
him to say the same thing under various forms?"
Another writer, a Roumanian bishop, speaking of
the Greek schools which, towards the end of the eigh
teenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century,
were the only institutions of learning in his country,
says: "Up to the present only words and rales are
taught in our schools, and the pupils' memory is over
burdened by forcing them to learn them by heart, hke
parrots, without troubling themselves to understand
them. It is thus that one sees students spend from

84 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
ten to twelve years and grow old in the study of
grammar." It is no wonder, then, that education was hard to
get, that learned men were the rare exception and that
schools were not numerous. In the first quarter of
the eighteenth century two Europeans who visited
Athens found only three learned men there, namely,
the archbishop, the abbot of a monastery and a physi
cian. In the second half of the same century, there
were about thirty-two higher Greek scholars in Tur
key, while up to 1813 there was not a single grammar,
parish or elementary school in Greece. While we are
told that Mavrocordato and other pioneers of educa
tion aimed at spreading philosophy among the people,
a thing which the people could very well have dis
pensed with, popular education was at a low ebb.
I have dwelt so far upon the education supplied by
the Greek schools, because up to the first quarter of
the last century the Greeks were the only people in
the Near East that were able to have schools. This
was due to the fact that the Greek Patriarchate was
in their hands and the Patriarchs almost without any
exception were Greeks. The same is tme of the bish
ops and archbishops who had charge of the various
dioceses in the Turkish empire. The other Christians,
as the Bulgarians and the Serbians, had no ecclesias
tical heads of their own and no official representatives,
except the Greek patriarchs and bishops, before the
central government in Constantinople or the provin
cial authorities.
Another advantage that the Greeks had over the
other Christians was, that they possessed a rich an-

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 85
cient literature, which could serve them as the basis
of education. Greek was also the language of the
church, and in it were composed the theological works
of the great fathers of the Church, its preachers and
divines. The Bulgarians and Serbians had no such
ancient literature of famous poets, historians, philoso
phers, orators and others. In the elaboration of a
school system of education, the Greeks, in view of the
degeneracy of the spoken language which was con
sidered uncouth and barbarous, fell back upon the re
vival of ancient Greek as a literary language and as
the medium of instruction. The Bulgarians and the
Serbians had no such language represented by such
productions of high literary character. Aside from
their spoken language, in which no literature existed,
they had the church Slavic language, which was quite
different from the popular or vernacular, and in which
the only available books were those that were used in
the church services. Hence, the Greek schools became
the patterns after which similar institutions among
the other Christians of the Eastern Orthodox confes
sion in Turkey were established.
But as the spoken language of the people was con
sidered unfit for literary purposes, and as even the
church Slavic was proscribed by the Greek Patriarch
and bishops in the churches, the non-Greek popula
tions were obliged to have recourse to the Greek lan
guage and the Greek literary productions in their
schools. The teachers were graduates of the Greek
schools, imbued with the spirit of Hellenism and with
devotion to Greek learning. One of the most promi
nent Bulgarian teachers, in whose school in the first

86 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
half of the last century several Bulgarians had been
educated, was such a fervent devotee to Greek learn
ing that in one of his writings he recommends to the
Bulgarians to leave aside instmction in Bulgarian and
devote themselves to the study of the Greek language
and literature.
In Bulgaria the instruction in the cloister or cell
schools was maintained in some of the monasteries,
and in very few other places where some monk or
priest, versed in the reading of the church Slavic lan
guage, gathered around him a very small number of
pupils and taught them. These schools, however,
were so rare that their number in 1750 was not greater
than twenty-eight, and fifty years later it did not
amount to more than forty-eight. How many schools
there were in Bulgaria in which the instruction was
given in Greek cannot be determined, but it is safe
to affirm that wherever there were such schools, the
Bulgarian language was excluded from them.
In the first half of the last century, Bulgarians who
had been educated in Greek schools began here and
there to open the so-called Greco-Slavic schools, in
which, while still retaining Greek instruction as the
most important, a small part was allotted to the study
of the church Slavic language.
It was only in 1835 that the first really Bulgarian
school of a high grade, conducted on the Lancasterian
method of instruction, was founded. It owed its
foundation to a Bulgarian merchant settled in Odessa,
Russia, and its first principal was a Bulgarian monk.
In this school Bulgarian textbooks, either printed or in
manuscript prepared by the principal, were used. One

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 87
of these textbooks was a grammar of the Bulgarian
language, the first of its kind. The opening of this
school led to the opening of similar schools in other
parts of the country, and its graduates or even students
who had taken a partial course, easily found places as
teachers in the newly opened schools. The curriculum
was naturally not very extensive or comprehensive;
still it was not limited only to ecclesiastical training
or the tedious study of old classical Greek authors.
More attention was paid to secular studies, such as
mathematics, geography and history, and in the latter
was included that of Bulgaria, utterly neglected in the
schools before.
Some of the graduates of these schools went to
Russia to complete their education in the Russian
gymnasiums or universities. Thanks to the benevolence
of the Russian government and Russian societies for
the encouragement of education among the Slavs,
scholarships were founded by which many young Bul
garians benefited. Coming back from Russia these
educated men entered the teaching profession, at that
time the only profession open to them, in which they
could be of the greatest service to their country. By
their much better qualifications as teachers, they were
able to give the Bulgarian schools a better organiza
tion, far more consonant with the needs of the times
and the advance made in school instruction in Europe.
They also imprinted upon them a distinctly national
character, and saved them from remaining asylums of
scholasticism. In the Danubian principalities, as they were then
called, of Wallachia and Moldavia (now known as

88 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Roumania), Greek schools and learning took a firmer
hold than in Bulgaria. For about two centuries (1633-
1821) Greek influence was predominant in the country,
and in polite society the Greek language was preferred
to the popular vernacular. In Bulgaria and more so
in Roumania, people who laid claim to being educated
were ashamed to acknowledge their nationality and
kinship with the popular mass, but felt proud to call
themselves Greeks. This Grecomania took possession
even of the women in Roumania, who considered it a
point of gentility and good breeding to speak Greek.
In Bulgaria, on the contrary, woman's education was
practically unknown and Greek influence never
reached the female sex.
The reason of the extension of Greek schools, Greek
learning and manners among the Roumanians was that
both Wallachia and Moldovia were under the spiritual
dominion of the Greek Patriarchate and Greek bishops,
and also under the political rule of Greek princes. As
autonomous or privileged provinces they were gov
erned not by Turkish pashas, but by Christian gov
ernors appointed by the Sultan and chosen from among
the prominent Greeks in Constantinople. Each such
prince was accompanied by a number of his relatives
and friends, to whom various offices were assigned, and
a great influx of other Greeks, merchants or specula
tors, and of Greek monks took place. Naturally all
these conditions were favorable to Hellenism, which
found its greatest supporters among the aristocracy
or big landed proprietors of the country. Education
was limited to this small class; sons of the peasants,
who were really serfs of the nobles, were excluded

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 89
from the schools, and the opposition to the education
of the popular mass was so great that attempts at the
opening of primary rural schools in 1838 proved vain.
The method of instruction in these schools of Rou
mania was the same as in the other Greek schools
which we have already described, and, according to the
testimony of the Roumanian bishop, which was cited
above, their defects were the same.
Serbia, unlike Bulgaria and Roumania, did not fall,
owing to its geographical position, so directly under
Greek influence. Ecclesiastically it also was under the
jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople and
Greek bishops; but there were hardly any Greeks living
in it or adjoining it. The influence which was exerted
upon Serbia came mostly from the large Serbian popu
lation which inhabited Hungary and which was under
the jurisdiction of a native Patriarch and clergy. The
privileges granted by the Austrian Emperor to this
population authorized it to have its own schools. In
1782 a full gymnasium or lyceum existed in the town
of Karloftsi, the seat of the Patriarch, the teachers of
which were Russians. In Serbia proper, which was
under Turkish rule, there was not, up to the year 1804,
one school in a hundred villages, and whatever school
instruction there was had to be supplied by the usual
cloister or cell schools. During the summer, the pupils
in the monasteries as well as those under the tutorship
of the priests in the towns and villages, were occupied
with work in the fields. They tended the sheep, goats
and pigs, or were busy with harvesting and haymaking.
During the winter they were taught principally to read
church Slavic books. The teaching, however, was so

90 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
haphazard and unmethodical that many of the pupils
forgot during the summer what they had learned
during the winter, so that some of them did not
acquire the practice of simple mechanical reading in
four or five years.
With the political emancipation of Serbia, Greece
and Bulgaria from Turkish rule, popular education in
these countries has made rapid advances, compared
with what it was before. Serbia and Greece regained
their independence or self-government in 1829 and
1830 respectively; Roumania, even when it was con
sidered part of the Turkish empire, had home rule
under Christian governors, while Bulgaria was consti
tuted in 1878 into a semi-independent principality
practically self-governed.
The school systems in all these countries have been
organized after those obtaining in other countries of
Europe, particularly Austria, Germany or France. The
schools are under State supervision and management
and the State provides for their maintenance. In the
capital of each of these States there is a State Univer
sity. One of the most interesting things in connection
with the progress that has been made in popular edu
cation in the Balkan States is the attention that is
paid to the education of girls. No such education
existed under the old system, as it was considered un
necessary for girls to know anything beyond their
household duties. In Bulgaria especially co-education
has been introduced into the University, the primary
and high schools and into some gymnasia or colleges.
In December, 1920, the Minister of National Edu-

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 91
cation of Bulgaria introduced into the National Assem
bly a new project of law by which greater impulse is
to be given to popular education. In the speech which
he pronounced on the occasion, he brought out, basing
himself upon official statistics, some facts which show
the progress the country has made in the matter of
education within the last forty years. Judged by the
literacy of the army recruits in 1910, Bulgaria occupied
the first place among the Balkan States and the tenth
place among the European States, standing before
Hungary, Italy and Russia. Three years later, i.e., in
1913, only 5% of the recruits were illiterate, while in
Greece and Roumania the percentage of illiteracy was
30% and 41% respectively. In Bulgaria there are 121
pupils per one thousand inhabitants, in Greece 117,
in Roumania 88, and in Serbia 51. Bulgaria has one
school to every 788 inhabitants, Greece to every 691,
Roumania to 1291, Serbia to 2065.
Even when they were under Turkish rule the Bul
garians were noted for their great zeal for education.
Two years before Bulgaria was politically emancipated,
i.e., in 1876, she had 1479 schools as against 582 in
Serbia, though the latter had enjoyed self-government
for almost half a century. The fact assumes a much
greater significance because under Turkish rule no
state aid was given to any Christian school. The
people, in addition to their other taxes and government
exactions, had to tax themselves voluntarily for the
support of their schools.
While popular education among the Christians of
the Balkan Peninsula has thus progressed rapidly and
been more and more assimilated to that of other

92 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
European nations, it has been very slow among the
ruling race — the Turks. Christian schools have out
stripped the Turkish in every respect. Up to the year
1846 whatever education there was among the Turks
was concentrated in the hands of the ulemas and imans
or, in other words, the priesthood. Elementary in
struction was given in some room attached to a
mosque devoid of all the appurtenances proper to a
school, under the guidance of the incumbent of the
mosque. Reading, rarely writing, and reciting the
Koran or parts of it were the principal subjects taught.
Besides these elementary schools, there were the
medressehs where theology and the religious law, with
the Arabic and Persian languages, were taught. Both
these kinds of schools still exist, but by a law of 1846
secular education was introduced and three grades of
schools were established : primary, middle or secondary
and higher. Education is obligatory in the primary
schools, but the law is not strictly enforced, as is the
case likewise with the schools of other Balkan nations.
An Imperial Lyceum, after the pattern of the French
lyceums and open to all nationalities was established
in 1868, under the management of French professors
and with French as the official language. It was the
first institution of learning created by the State in
which young men of all nationalities of the Empire
could get a liberal education. During the reign of
Sultan Hamid many schools were opened and some
attention paid to the education of the girls, for in spite
of all the defects that characterized him as a ruler, he
prided himself on being a promoter of education. In
Constantinople there is a University with branches for

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 93
law, medicine, a military and naval academy, normal
school, engineering school, while in the principal
towns there are high schools and the usual schools
for popular education. But education among the
Turks, in comparison with that of the Christians, is
very backward and the people in general are not so
eager for it. A few years ago a Turkish deputy in the
Parliament at Constantinople drew attention to the
popular prejudice against education, and in evidence
of it said that primers sent to schools in Asia Minor
had been returned, because they contained illustrations
of some domestic animals.
A survey of education in the Balkan Peninsula
would not be complete if one were to omit from it the
work done by American schools. Of these the best
known are Robert College and the American College
for Girls in Constantinople, which are non-sectarian
and have no connection with any missionary board.
The College for Girls, originally started as the Ameri
can Home School in 1871, is now in its fiftieth year
of existence, while Robert College has been in exist
ence since 1863. Aside from these two colleges there
are in the Balkan Peninsula other schools for boys and
girls due to missionary enterprise, all of which are
found in Bulgaria or among Bulgarians. In none
of the other Balkan Statesi — Greece, Roumania and
Serbia — have such institutions been encouraged or
allowed. The American Collegiate and Theological
Institute of Samokov, established in 1860, and the
school for girls in the same town, started in 1863, have
not only been allowed to exist, but have been granted
privileges equal to those enjoyed by the State schools.

94 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Their diplomas are recognized and accepted on equal
footing with those of the national schools. Their benef
icent work in the education of the youth of the coun
try has been welcomed and unstintedly praised and
welcomed by the Government, and recently the Na
tional Assembly voted almost unanimously to grant
to these two schools land free near Sofia for the erec
tion of buildings where they are to move.
American educational influence has been greatest in
Bulgaria, and sixty years ago, when Bulgarian schools
were, one might say, in their infancy, American mis
sionaries helped in the preparation of Bulgarian text
books. As in America, so in the Near East American
education aims at imparting to those who come under
its influence a love for honest work, perseverance, self-
reliance, manhness, broader views of life and a spirit
of toleration. So far as instruction goes, it cannot be
denied that with the present equipments which they
possess and with a corps of instructors a great many
of whom have university education, the native insti
tutions of learning do not fall below the American.
In certain cases they may even surpass them ; but it is
universally recognized and deplored that the spiritual
and moral influence of the native schools leave much to
be desired, and it is in this particular that the American
schools stand on a much higher level.
From the historical sketch which I have attempted
to draw of school education among the Christians of
the Balkan Peninsula since the capture of Constanti
nople, it is apparent that Turkish rule did not affect
unfavorably popular education. It was most probably

EDUCATION IN THE NEAR EAST 95
no better under Byzantine mle, and while the Turkish
domination did nothing to further it, it did not oppose
or hinder it. The church up to the last century was
the sole depository of learning among the Christians
in Turkey and although that learning was neither
great nor widely diffused among the clergy itself,
popular education was saved by the church from ex
tinction. For reasons to which I have already alluded, the
Greeks occupied a prominent place in the maintenance
of school education, but their schools were accessible
to men of other nationalities, who wished to benefit by
them. It is true that beginning with the last century
especially, these Greek schools were employed as means
of Hellenic propaganda and promoters of Hellenization.
It is also true that the Greek hierarchy, which was
spiritually ruling over the non-Greek Christians, dis
couraged, nay, positively forbade the opening of na
tional schools and the giving of instruction in the
national tongue of these Christians. But their efforts
to stifle national sentiment or consciousness proved
vain. In the revival of the Bulgarian nationality
during the second half of the last century and even
before, the most prominent champions were men who
had been educated in the Greek schools. That several
Bulgarians did yield to the process of Hellenization is
not to be denied; but the very fact that the Greek
professors in their teaching extolled the glory of an
cient Greece and bewailed the servitude, misery and
hopelessness of the modern Greeks, awakened in the
minds and hearts of their non-Greek hearers pity for

96 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
their own fellow-countrymen, and a desire to devote
themselves to the regeneration of their own people.
The opposition which they met on the part of the
Greek Patriarch and bishops, made them more deter
mined in their perseverance, for they knew that they
were fighting for a righteous national cause.

Lecture IV.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL DEVELOP
MENT OF THE BALKAN STATES.
I am going to speak to you to-day on the constitu
tional and political development of the Balkan States
and peoples since their political emancipation.
One of the principal arguments urged by those who
were opposed to granting political emancipation to the
Christians of Turkey by according to them autonomy
or home rule and thus detaching them from direct
Turkish rule, has been that they were not ripe for
liberty and self-government. Whatever the defects or
demerits of the Turkish government may be, it had,
in the eyes of the Turkophiles, this merit, that it had
existed for a long time with some sort of an organized
administration. The Turkish regime may not have
been all that could be desired; but this at least could
be said in its favor, that it maintained order and peace
among the various nationalities in the Balkan Pen
insula. The Turk stood as the policeman of the
Peninsula, who prevented national and religious di
vergencies and animosities from degenerating into
open strife and civil war. Ignorant and debased, with
out any pohtical leaders or political experience, the
Christians of the Near East were incapable, so it was
said, to organize themselves into orderly governments
97

98 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
and develop qualities which would assure success and
stability. It was better, in the opinion of the pro-
pounders of this argument, to put up with things as
they were than to try experiments the success of which
was problematic.
The weakness of the argument is apparent. You
cannot expect people to develop political capacities by
denying to them every opportunity of exercising po
litical power or by keeping them in bondage. There
was nothing in the Turkish regime that could be called
politically educational for their Christian subjects. To
keep them under such a regime was certainly the most
hopeless way to prepare them for self-government.
If we look back at the constitution of the mediaeval
Bulgarian and Serbian States we find that political
authority was concentrated in the hands of the ruler
and the class of nobles or magnates. The greatest
pride of a Bulgarian or Serbian King was to adorn
himself with a title of Tsar, corresponding to the Greek
Basileus and that of "Autocrat," borne by the Byzan
tine Emperors. If the ruler happened to be a man of
strong will and iron hand, he could keep the magnates
in subjection and make them obey him: if not, they did
not hesitate in braving his authority and asserting their
independence. The people had no rights; they were
practically serfs. Notices have been left to us of assem
blies convoked by the Kings on some special occasions;
but in these assemblies, composed of the magnates and
the higher clergy, the mass of the people were unrepre
sented. The model which the Bulgarian and Serbian
Kings imitated and from which they copied their own
administration was Byzantium, where autocratic rale

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 99
obtained. When dissatisfaction with oppressive laws,
taxes or government exactions became too strong, it
found vent in riots and revolutions, of which we find
more instances in the history of Byzantium than in
that of Bulgaria or Serbia.
The reason assigned by the Serbian historian Stanoe-
vitch for the downfall of the Serbian kingdom under
the domination of the Turks may be applied equally
well to the same fate which befell the Bulgarian king
dom. "The State," says this historian, "took away
everything from the peasantry without giving them in
return any security whatever of life or property.
Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that in
many places the people preferred to fall under the
Turkish dominion, believing that it might grant them
some advantages which the Serbian State could not,
and that a change of masters might, at any rate, bring
some improvement in their life. The people reasoned
that they were not obliged to work and fight for their
masters, who squeezed everything out of them without
being able to defend them at least from the incursions
of their enemies."
The Turkish conquest did not produce any great
change in the condition of the mass of the people. It
was only an exchange of masters, with the difference
that the new master was alien to his subjects in race,
language and religion. Provided the Christians were
submissive, paid their taxes and endured without any
murmur the demands or exactions made by the govern
ment upon their resources, their domestic and social
form of organization was not disturbed. Of political
rights there could be no question, for such rights were

100 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
not enjoyed, under the existing despotic government,
even by the Turkish population itself.
The social and religious differences between the
conquerors and the vanquished tended to keep them
apart, though they lived under the same government.
Had the conquering race been akin to the Christians
in faith, there might have been, perhaps, some cohesion
between the two, and some sort of assimilation might
have been the outcome. As it was, a differentiation
was imposed upon the Turkish Sultans, and this was
clearly perceived by Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror,
when he replaced the Byzantine Emperor in Constanti
nople. He might, of course, have offered to his Chris
tian subjects the Koran or the sword, conversion to
Mohammedanism or extermination. Aside from the
possibility that such a plan might have proved too
difficult to carry out and have raised complications by
driving the Christians to desperation, while the Turks
were still hoping or planning to extend their conquests
to other Christian lands, it is doubtful if the plan
would have worked for the advantage of the Turkish
power. A policy of toleration was much more profit
able, for the Turks could not have dispensed altogether
with the services of the Christians. The latter supphed
them not only with the best troops, but also with the
resources for the prosecution of their wars or conquest.
By the taxes they paid, by the tillage of the soil as
farmers and producers and by the various requisitions
that were imposed upon them in the matter of trans
portation, provisioning of the army, corvee or forced
labor, etc., the Christians were of greater service than
they would have been if they had been made by con-

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 101
version equal to their masters. Of course, if they had
become Mohammedan like the Turks, some of these
things could not have been imposed upon them.
We may safely assume that it was not due to gen
erosity or magnanimity, of which Turkish Sultans have
always liked to boast, or to a spirit of toleration merely,
that the Christians were allowed to exist or preserve
their faith and nationality. Sultan Mehmed the
Conqueror chose the part of wisdom, when, instead of
taking extreme measures towards the Christians, he
tried to win their allegiance by conceding to them
certain immunities and privileges.
The most important of these immunities and priv
ileges were those granted to the Christian Church and
its Head, the Patriarch of Constantinople. Aside from
the personal prerogatives which he enjoys, as an official
of the highest rank, the Patriarch, as I said in my last
lecture has the absolute control over the churches,
schools, hospitals and other beneficent Christian insti
tutions. He is treated not only as the religious chief
of the Christians, but also as the intermediary between
them and the government. The position of the Patri
arch under Turkish rale was in many respects stronger
and more independent, so far as his ecclesiastical or
spiritual power was concerned, than it had been under
the Byzantine emperors. As a Mussulman ruler, the
Sultan could not interfere in the purely ecclesiastical
questions, which were of the competency of the
Patriarchate. In the Byzantine Empire, as we know,
the Emperor really was the master and the Patriarch
was his servant.
In matters relating to marriage, divorce and in-

102 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
heritance as concerning Christians the Mohammedan
sacred law could not be applied. They were referred to
the ecclesiastical tribunals, which were allowed to
function under the authority of the Patriarch and the
bishops, whom he appointed to the various dioceses of
the Empire. In the management of their churches
and schools, the Christians had their boards of trustees
under the general supervision and control of the
bishops. The church was, therefore, not limited to
rehgious affairs only: it exercised civil rights also, and,
as a Greek writer says, "with its prelates and digni
taries, who represented it in every community, was
virtually the Christians' supreme ruler in matters of
national affairs as well."
Another institution which the Turks tolerated for a
long time and in which the Christians had some share
of self-government was the communal organization.
This affected especially the rural population, which
was allowed to manage its own local affairs. The
mayor of the village, with a council of elders, assessed
and collected the taxes, which he paid over to the
government, acted as the representative of the people
before the authorities, and in case of litigation used
his good offices between the litigants, so as to prevent
them from going to the Turkish courts and save them
from expense and exploitation. In the towns also
there were similar communal organizations, composed
mostly of the prominent citizens, called tchorbajis or
notables, and the representatives of the guilds or trade-
unions. This word "tchorbaji" is a very interesting
word, because it denoted among the Janizars the man
who had charge of the mess or kitchen. It is de-

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 103
rived from the Turkish word "tchorba," which means
"soup," so that "tchorbaji" means "soup-man." After
wards, however, it was transferred to these notables in
various towns and villages, and it is never given to a
Turk, but only to a Christian. I have never heard of
a Turk being called "tchorbaji." The notables were
men who either for some service rendered to the gov
ernment as army contractors, or on account of their
wealth, had acquired a prominent position among their
fellow-countrymen. As late as the last century such
men were found in every town, and by the rank or some
distinction conferred upon them by the Turkish gov
ernment, they became very influential with the pro
vincial authorities. Some of these notables, it is true,
used not unfrequently their influence for selfish ends
and the promotion of their own interests, but not a few
of them, at the risk of their interests and even lives,
defended their fellow-countrymen against the abuses
and oppression of the local authorities. I know of
Bulgarian notables who were more powerful with the
central government than the Turkish governor of the
province himself, and the Turkish governor stood in
awe of such Bulgarian notables.
Another social agency where the Christians could
exercise freedom of organization and control of their
affairs was the guilds. Every trade was authorized
to have its guild, which the government officially rec
ognized as a corporate body, possessing its own by-laws
for its administration. As the various kinds of crafts
or trades were generally in the hands of Christians,
these formed the majority or even the exclusive mem
bership of the guild; but there were some guilds where

104 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Christians and Turks worked harmoniously together.
The guild held its regular meetings, discussed its af
fairs, passed resolutions embodied in protocols or
registers, distributed fairly the profits among its mem
bers, imposed penalties by fine or temporary suspen
sion upon those who had violated its statutes, without
any interference on the part of the government
authorities. Its decisions were without appeal, even
if a Turk were condemned to pay a fine by supplying
candles to a mosque or wax to a church.
The strangest privilege granted by the Sultans of
yore to their Christian subjects, was the constitution
of certain villages and towns, mostly situated in moun
tainous districts, into a kind of semi-autonomous
communities. These privileged locahties existed in
Bulgaria in the early part of the nineteenth century,
and were designated even by the Turkish government
by the Bulgarian word voynik (soldier) villages. They
were exempt from certain taxes, the official who repre
sented the government authority bore the title of
voyvoda, a Bulgarian word meaning a leader or chief.
No Turks were allowed to dwell in these villages, no
exception being made even for the family of the gov
ernment representative, and, according to some reports,
no Turk could pass through the place on horseback or
with his horse shod. He was obliged, before he en
tered the village or town, to unshoe his horse and lead
him, and not mount him until he went out of the
village at the other end. In return for these privileges
the inhabitants of these locahties were required to
supply the government with the facilities of transpor
tation or act as convoy in the commissariat or the

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 105
army. Another charge which they had to perform in
time of peace was to take care of the Sultan's numerous
horses, groom and pasture them. It was one of the
great sights in Constantinople years ago to see these
beautiful Arab horses being led out to pasture in the
month of May, all led by these Bulgarian peasants,
accompanied by music and the horses beautifully
decorated with flowers. They used to go through a
large part of the city. Most of the grooms in the im
perial palace at this time were Bulgarians, and I know
that the chief coachman of the Sultan and the lackey
who sat with the coachman for many years were Bul
garians from these villages. From these localities also
were supplied the tailors, who in the absence of any
factories and sewing machines in those days, had to
prepare by hand the uniforms of the Turkish army.
These tailors, under foremen and managers of their
own, formed an organization on a military model and
were amenable to special regulations. The privileged
villages were entrusted also with guarding the moun
tain passes and keeping the country clear of brigands.
In Greece and Thessaly they were known by the name
of Armatoloi (armed men) and were placed under the
control of the village mayors.
In alluding to these few privileges enjoyed by some
of the Christians of the Balkan Peninsula, it is well
to state that they were granted by the Sultans as
exceptional favors, either as a matter of policy or
necessity. These favors, as I said, were bestowed
mostly upon such localities which by their geographical
position or for some other reason, it was better to
conciliate than to try to bring under complete subjec-

106 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
tion. Besides, their population was obliged to per
form duties which may have been regarded as too
humble or humiliating for Mohammedans to perform,
or for the performance of which they were incapable.
It would be attaching too high a value upon these
privileges to say that they partook of self-government,
or that they initiated those upon whom they were be
stowed in political or civil liberty. When the Turkish
government began to think of reforms, which were to
convert Turkey into a European State, these privileges
were abrogated, under the pretext that they were in
consistent with the proclaimed equality of all the sub
jects of the Sultan. Repeated attempts have been
made to annul the immunities vouchsafed to the
church; but the strenuous opposition of the Greek
Patriarch and the foreign influence exerted in his be
half have frustrated them.
The political emancipation of the Balkan States
dates from the last century. Serbia's autonomy was
secured by the Adrianople treaty between Turkey and
Russia in 1829. By the same treaty the Sultan was
forced to recognize the independence of Greece, which
was officially proclaimed in 1832. The youngest
Balkan State was Bulgaria, and it owes its political
emancipation to the Russo-Turkish war of 1877 and
the treaty of San Stefano of the foUowing year. By
this treaty Russia sought to create a Big Bulgaria,
comprising the territory between the Danube and the
Balkan Mountains, a large part of Thrace and almost
the whole of Macedonia, where the majority of the
Christian population was recognized to be Bulgarian.
Guided by the principle that territorial and political

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 107
changes in Turkey are a matter of European concern
and fearing lest a Big Bulgaria might prove an ad
vanced post of Russia in her future designs on Con
stantinople, the European Powers, led by England and
Austria, revised the San Stefano treaty at the Congress
of Berlin of 1878. By this revision Macedonia and
Thrace were left under Turkish rule with the promise
of a privileged administration; Bulgaria, south of the
Balkans, was constituted into an autonomous province,
called Eastern Roumelia, under the sovereignty of the
Sultan, while Bulgaria between the Danube and the
Balkan Mountains was erected into a semi-independ
ent principality under the Sultan's suzerainty. An
International Commission, composed of delegates of
the Great European Powers, was charged with the
elaboration of the Organic Statute by which Eastern
Roumelia was to be administered. The Principality of
Bulgaria was placed under the rule of a Prince, chosen
by the people and approved by the European Powers,
and its administration was to be regulated by a consti
tution enacted by the people through their representa
tives in a Constituent Assembly.
There are several points of resemblance between the
Balkan States in the beginning of their political life
and constitutional government. The conditions under
which they had lived while under Turkish rule were
the same, and the preparation of the people for self-
government did not differ much. A constitutional
regime was an altogether new experiment they were
called upon to try, and doubts about the success of
the trial were not unjustified. Constitutional govern
ment in the Balkan States did not develop by evolu-

108 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
tion, nor was it determined by pohtical traditions,
which did not exist. A pohtical servitude of well-
nigh five hundred years would have obliterated them,
even if they had existed. Everything had to be con
structed and organized on new principles, different
from those on which the Turkish regime had rested,
and in accordance with the development these prin
ciples had reached in other European countries.
In comparison with Serbia and Greece, Bulgaria,
which began its pohtical life half a century later, had
the advantage of working out its constitutional form
of government under more favorable circumstances.
While popular education was still very low, it certainly
stood much higher than that of Serbia, for example,
when the Serbians began their war for independence
in the early part of the nineteenth century. There
were more Bulgarians who had received a home or
foreign education or had come into contact with
European culture than there were Serbians, when
Serbia won her autonomous government. The two
leaders of the two Serbian revolutions of 1804 and
1815 were uneducated and illiterate men, and most of
those with whom they had to work in the administra
tion of the country labored under the same disadvan
tage. They were brave and courageous men, who had
distinguished themselves as good fighting leaders in
the war against the Turks; but they lacked both the
knowledge and the experience of organizing a State.
As chiefs of the various districts, they claimed equality
with the prince, who had been raised to that rank
from their midst, and were not willing to submit to
him as their sovereign.

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 109
By the charter of 1830 the Sultan granted autonomy
to Serbia and recognized Milosh Obrenovitch, the
leader of the Serbian revolution of 1815, as hereditary
prince, who, in conjunction with a Council of State,
composed of the prominent men of the country, was
to carry on its government. But the ideas of govern
ment of Milosh were those of a Turkish pasha, not of
a constitutional ruler. The Council of State was not
a body representative of the people, and the prince,
guided by his arbitrary instincts and ambition for
power, ignored it. A constitution, voted by a National
Skupshtina or Assembly in 1835, which provided for
the formation of a Ministry or Cabinet of six members,
the distribution of the legislative and executive power
between the Council of State and the Prince, and the
institution of a National Assembly of one hundred
popularly elected deputies, was suspended by the
Prince about two months after it was voted. Dissen
sions among the national leaders, antagonism between
them and the Prince, which involved a change of
dynasty, interference on the part of the Sultan, as
Suzerain of Serbia, and of some foreign Powers that
were interested for their own political ends in the
form of administration of the country, delayed for a
long time the establishment of a stable government,
based on a tmly popular representation.
Up to 1888, the various Constitutions that were
drafted had for their principal aim to strengthen the
authority of the Prince and to leave loopholes whereby
their prescriptions could be set aside or violated.
Under the reigns of Milan* and his son Alexander,f
* Third ruler of the Obrenovitch dynasty; Prince 1868-1882; King
1882-1889. t Fourth ruler of the Obrenovitch dynasty ; King 1889-1903.

110 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
constitutional government in Serbia was a mockery.
The constitution was suspended or restored according
to the whims of the ruler and as it best suited his
individual policy. By cleverly manipulating the dis
cords among the politicians of the country, both Milan
and Alexander found supporters of their encroach
ments upon the constitutional regime. The Radical
Party, composed of men sincerely desirous of introduc
ing a real constitutional government into Serbia and
representing the great majority of the Serbian people,
fought strenuously for the vindication of popular
rights and popular government. The struggle did not
end till 1903, when by a military coup d'etat the last
scion of the Obrenovitch dynasty was deposed and
murdered, and the Karageorgievitch family, in the
person of King Peter,* was recalled upon the throne
of Serbia. With his accession to the throne con
stitutional government in Serbia with popular rep
resentation and on democratic principles was firmly
established. The new King has faithfully kept his
promise to observe strictly the constitution and under
his rule Serbia has enjoyed a peaceful parliamentary
government which has proved beneficial to the coun
try. With the formation of Jugoslavia, or the King
dom of Serbians, Croats and Slovenes, in which Serbia
will, or wishes to, play a prominent role, a new con
stitution for the united kingdom will be elaborated
by a Constituent Assembly, the delegates to which
have been already elected.!
?King Peter died August 16, 1921, a few days after the delivery
of this lecture.
t A constitution was voted on the 15th of last June, but I am
sorry to say I have no details of the constitution, so I cannot tell
you anything about it.

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 111
Greece also had to pass through several years of
unrest and pohtical experiments ere it succeeded in
establishing a constitutional government. Starting its
political existence as an independent kingdom, it was
free from the disadvantages and inconveniences of the
interference of a suzerain power in its internal affairs;
but the conflicting interests in the kingdom of France,
England and Russia, which had secured the independ
ence of Greece, exposed it to greater trials and diffi
culties. A young and inexperienced Bavarian prince,
aged seventeen, selected by the three Powers, was sent
to rule over the newly established State. A Regency of
three members, all of whom were Bavarians, un
acquainted with the country and its people, were
entrusted with the powers of government. Instead
of ordering their administration on communal or
municipal principles, they formed it on those of cen
tralization and bureaucracy. For ten years popular
discontent, which found vent in brigandage and
piracy, kept the country in turmoil and disorder. King
Otho was finally forced to convoke a National Assem
bly to elaborate a constitution, dismiss his Bavarian
Counsellors and appoint a ministry of Greeks.
The new constitution did not improve much the
administration of the country or the condition of the
people, for it was based upon concentration of power
in the central government and allowed very»few rights
to the people. The blundering interference of the
Powers added still more to the confusion, for each
Power tried to create a party of its own adherents,
which were known as English, French or Russian,
according to the cause they espoused, and by serving

112 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
which they hoped to attain to power. With pohtical
parties so constituted, the interests of the Greek people
were neglected, and Greece financially and economi
cally was brought to the verge of ruin.
A military revolution for the overthrow of King
Otho, who during his reign of almost thirty years had
failed to gain any popularity, forced him to leave the
country in 1862. In the space of thirty-two years
(1832-1864) of its pohtical existence as an independent
kingdom, six constitutions were successively apphed
in Greece. With the accession to the throne of the late
King George, who succeded Otho in 1863, the Greeks
asserted their rights to a liberal constitution, framed
by a Constituent Assembly in 1864, which secured to
the country a national government, and recognized the
principle that "all power had its source in the nation."
The constitutions of Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria
bear a great resemblance to each other both on ac
count of the sources from which they were derived and
the social conditions under which they were framed.
They contain those rights and attributes which parlia
mentary government grants to popular representation,
and they are particularly careful to emphasize the
democratic principles upon which they are based.
Neither in Serbia, nor in Greece, nor in Bulgaria is
there any aristocracy, and in order to guard against
the creation of a nobihty or the institution of priv
ileged classes, some constitutions, as for example, that
of Bulgaria, expressly forbid any class distinctions. A
brief review of how the Bulgarian constitution origi
nated and of its principal provisions, that are common
to the constitutions of Greece and Serbia, may be of

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 113
interest in giving an idea of the way former Turkish
subjects have managed to organize orderly and decent
government. When in 1878 Bulgaria was constituted into a semi-
independent Principahty, a commission composed of
Russian officials was appointed by order of the Russian
Tsar to frame a constitution for the country. In 1879
a Bulgarian Constituent Assembly, consisting of popu
larly elected and ex officio delegates, met in the old
capitol of Bulgaria, Tirnovo, to discuss and adopt the
constitution. Among the members of the Assembly
there was hardly one Bulgarian who had formerly sat
in a parliament, or was familiar with parliamentary
usage and procedure. Exception should be made for
the few delegates, alumni of the American Robert
College, who as students had studied Parliamentary
Law and practiced it in their literary and debating
societies at school. To them also fell the larger share
in drawing up the parliamentary rules and regulations
in accordance with which the business of the Con
stituent Assembly was to be conducted.
The draft constitution was in many points very
conservative, as it left in the hands of the ruler or
Prince considerable power. If its framers had expected
that it would be passed without submitting it to
searching discussions and criticisms, they were soon
undeceived. From the very beginning strongly liberal
and democratic tendencies became evident, the aim of
which was to make the government of the country
truly popular. It must have been a startling revelation
to the Russian officials, who attended the meetings of
the Assembly, to hear and see men, so recently emanci-

114 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
pated from pohtical serfdom, discuss and propound so
freely pohtical and constitutional ideas and theories.
The proposition that a Senate conjointly with a
House of Representatives should exercise the power
of legislation was rejected, on the ground that Senators
would be a "bunch" of idlers and loungers, and that the
name senator savored of aristocracy. The institution
of a Council of State, partly by election and partly by
appointment, met with the same fate, for it was feared
that its members might eventually develop into a
privileged class. Whether these fears were justified or
not, and whether the Constituent Assembly acted
wisely in instituting a one chamber legislature, are
open questions. I have cited these cases only to show
how strong the democratic sentiment of the Assembly
was and how suspicious its members were of any insti
tution that might be construed into or give rise to
class distinctions. The aversion to Turkish pashas
and State Councillors, with whose character and pro
ceedings the people of Bulgaria were well acquainted,
induced no doubt the delegates to look with distrust
upon the institution of a Senate or a Council of State.
In order to guard against any future attempts to
introduce class distinctions, the Constitution expressly
forbids the conferring of titles of nobihty or any other
distinctions. Among the latter were included uni
forms, except for the military and pohce, and decora
tions, of which one only for military bravery on the
battlefield was allowed. By a later amendment to the
Constitution decorations have been sanctioned, and
men employed in the diplomatic service of the country
are permitted to wear uniforms, a regulation which

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 115
now, however, is not considered obligatory. Other
officials of the government, not excluding even the
cabinet ministers, are forbidden to wear any uniforms.
The Christian Orthodox religion of the Eastern rite
is declared to be the State religion, but all other re
ligions that are not contrary to public morals are
tolerated and no interference with their free exercise
is allowed. Equality before the law for all, inviolability
of the right of property, of personal liberty, of corre
spondence and domicile are guaranteed. Primary in
struction is free and obligatory. There is complete
freedom of the press, with no censorship of the re
quirement of caution money from either editor or
publisher. The rights of association, meeting and pe
tition, individual or collective, are guaranteed.
Legislation is vested in the National Assembly, and
initiation of laws is shared between it and the minis
ters. While the ruler has the right of appointing and
dismissing ministers, the latter are responsible to the
National Assembly and every act or decree of the King
must be countersigned by the respective minister who
assumes the responsibility for the King's act.
The control of the State budget and the voting of
supplies is entirely in the hands of the National Assem
bly, which also has the power to impose and determine
taxes. The convocation and prorogation of the assem
bly is a prerogative of the King, but the time and the
manner are expressly stipulated in the Constitution.
He may, on the proposition of the Cabinet, dissolve
the Assembly, but within a certain specified period of
time new elections must take place and the new
Assembly be called together.

116 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Such are the most important provisions of the Con
stitution of Bulgaria. At the time that it was adopted,
forty-two years ago, many thought that it was too
hberal for a newly emancipated people and serious
doubts were entertained about its successful working.
These doubts have been disproved, as they have been
disproved also in the case of the Constitution of Serbia
and Greece. The political inexperience of the people
and their leaders, the absence of a strong and healthy
public opinion and the difficulties inherent in the ap
plication and working of a constitutional government
among people devoid of parliamentary traditions and
precedents, have been the cause of serious blunders in
the administration of the State affairs in all the three
Balkan States. That was inevitable, and every impar
tial critic and observer will agree with the judgment
of Mr. William Miller, the English author of the well-
known work on The Balkans, who, in speaking of
Bulgaria, says: "With all their faults and in spite of
all their trials and temptations, the peasant statesmen
have achieved great triumphs during the compara
tively brief period of their country's existence as a
practically independent State."
In the development of their political life the Balkan
States have had to work under several disadvantages.
Their smallness has not allowed them to have and
practise an independent policy of their own. In for
eign politics they have been obliged to move in the
orbit of this or that great European Power, according
to political exigencies. This fickleness in their foreign
policy has reacted upon their internal affairs also, and
has made undue foreign influence possible. I have

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 117
already alluded to the formation in Greece of parties
called English, French and Russian, according to the
support they received from England, France or Russia.
In Serbia and Bulgaria Austrophilism and Austro-
phobism, Russophilism and Russophobism have played
a great part in national politics. Perhaps no very
great harm would have been done, if these tendencies
had been limited to foreign politics; but a separation
of foreign and internal politics was not easy to estab
lish, and now the one, now the other tendency has been
used by the politicians to advance their own ambitious
ends and secure their ascendency. To this cause is
also due the existence in the Balkan States of more
politicians than real practical statesmen with broad
conceptions of a constructive policy.
No parliamentary government can do without politi
cal parties. In countries where such a government has
been created by evolution and where the parties have
developed from certain principles relating to external
or internal State policies, they may be useful and jus
tifiable in acting upon each other as a counterpoise
in the government machinery. Such parties, based on
principles, are not apt to degenerate wholly and easily
into personalities or individual animosities.
The bane of the political and constitutional life of
the Balkan peoples has been that the political parties
are founded upon personalities and not upon prin
ciples. It was so in the beginning of their political
existence, and although in later years some improve
ment is noticeable in the formation of parties with
some definite platforms, Balkan States are not yet
free of partisan politics. Perhaps that is not a

118 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
disease peculiar to the Balkan States only. In
the Bulgarian Constituent Assembly of 1879, there
were men who honestly thought that a too liberal
Constitution might not be to the best advantage of
the country, which was just starting on its political
hfe. These men were not aristocrats or nobles, nor
were they in favor of instituting class privileges or
distinctions, which they knew perfectly well would be
repugnant to the sentiment and temperament of the
people. In defending the institution of a second
Chamber or a Council of State, they wished to prevent
the National Assembly from falling into the hands of
demagogues and to put a restraint upon hasty and ill-
considered legislation. Their opponents at once
dubbed them as "conservatives," "retrogrades" and
"reactionaries," epithets which were quite misplaced,
for there was nothing in the past history of the coun
try that was worth conserving or that these men
wished to conserve. The personal element counted for
a great deal in this pohtical spht, which as time
went on widened and caused serious commotion and
unrest in the country, and which at one time seemed
likely to imperil the Constitution.
The political parties in the Balkan States without
any really definite political programs have tended to
become powerless to resist the assumption of more
power by the reigning King. A clever, ambitious and
scheming ruler can easily so manipulate the various
leaders of the parties as to make them subservient to
his desires and designs, and concentrate greater power
in his hands than is his due by the prescriptions of

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 119
the Constitution. As the chief concern of the party
leaders is to get into power and as the King has the
right of appointing and dismissing the ministers, it
frequently has happened that a new ministry has been
constituted not because it has a majority in, or enjoys
the confidence of the Parliament, but simply because
the King, by a more docile cabinet, hopes to attain
some purpose he may have in view. Parliament is
then dissolved and new elections are ordered, which,
being carried out under government pressure, may
secure a parliamentary majority for the new ministry,
unless public sentiment be so strong as to resist the
pressure and assert itself.
One often meets with the statement that parlia
mentary elections in the Balkan States generally turn
out in favor of the government that is in power and
under whose control they are carried out. While the
truth of the statement cannot be denied, for it is sup
ported by many instances, it can be qualified by
saying that as the political education of the people has
advanced and they have become more conscious of
their rights, fraudulent or made-to-order elections
have become rarer and more difficult. The experiences
through which some of the Balkan nations have gone
during the last war will make them more chary of
trusting their fate to their politicians or rulers and
more jealous of the exercise of their constitutional
privileges and rights.
The virulence of party animosities and bickerings
has been considerably softened, as, for example, in
Bulgaria and Serbia, by the introduction of the pro-

120 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
portional system of elections, by which minorities are
able to obtain due representation in parliament and
municipal government.
The great lesson which the Balkan peoples have to
learn and which they are gradually learning is, that,
no matter how good a Constitution may be on paper,
it is beneficial only when it is loyally observed by those
in authority and when the people, instead of being
indifferent to the actions and conduct of their rulers,
take an interest in the affairs of the State and make
their influence felt through the ballot and the press.
It is usually said that the Greeks are great politicians
and very fond of discussing political questions. The
same is true of the other peoples of the Balkan Pen
insula. In Sofia or Belgrade one will hear pohtics,
internal or external, discussed in private or in public
much more and oftener than in this country, as far as
my experience goes; but in the Balkan countries people
have not yet learned to dissociate personal grudges
from public questions. Dissensions and cleavages in
parties are produced not by any great differences or
divergencies of opinion on political, social or economic
questions, but by wrangles over leadership or distribu
tion of ministerial posts. It would be difficult, for
example, to draw a line of distinction between a Lib
eral, a Young Liberal and a National Liberal party,
unless it be on the ground that each of these parties
contains men who disagree on the various places they
wish to occupy in the Cabinet. The press is ran on
party lines, and rare are the newspapers that in the
discussion of public affairs will not be biassed more or
less by partisan considerations. Independent journals

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 121
could help much in promoting the formation of inde
pendent pubhc opinion, but it is doubtful, as a Bul
garian minister with whom I discussed the question
told me, if such papers could enlist public support
enough to assure their existence.
It may not be amiss to touch here upon a question
which bears some relation to the political tendencies
of the Balkan States. Since the Balkan wars a great
deal has been written about political hegemony in
the Balkan Peninsula, and Bulgaria particularly has
been accused of aiming at establishing her preponder
ance in the Peninsula and lording it over her neighbors.
Those who make the charge carefully avoid bringing
any facts in corroboration of it. They point, it is
true, to the efficient army which Bulgaria has been
able to organize; but omit to state that the other
Balkan countries have not been backward with their
military preparations. Both Serbia and Greece have
devoted great attention to the efficient organization
of their military forces and have spared no expense
for the attainment of it. Greece has called the help
of French officers for her army and that of British
officers for her navy. The following statistics, taken
from the "Peace Year Book" for 1914 of the British
National Peace Council, show the respective war
budgets of the three countries. Bulgaria with a popu
lation of 4,329,000 had a war budget of 39,642,000
francs, or 9.10 francs per capita; Serbia, population
2,927,000, war budget 27,009,000 francs, or 9.50 francs
per capita; Greece, population 2,632,000, war budget
29,829,000 francs, or 11.30 francs per capita. These
figures certainly do not prove that Bulgaria is the

122 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
greatest spendthrift in the upkeep of her army, or that
she is more militaristic than her neighbors.
No hegemony could be established in the Balkan
Peninsula except by conquest. National consciousness
is so strongly developed among all the peoples that
they will not yield ready obedience to any power
unless they were coerced to do so. A Prussia in the
Balkans can neither exist nor maintain itself, for all
the national and social conditions that raised Prussia
to a predominant position in Germany are lacking
there. It is absurd to suppose that a small country
like Bulgaria could ever subjugate the Greeks or the
Serbians and hold them under her sway, or force them
into a union in which she was to play the part of a
"boss." In the next place, hegemony in the Balkans,
or the creation of a powerful State that could group
the other States around it, would not have been re
garded with disinterestedness by the European Powers,
especially Austria and Russia. In a secret Austro-
Russian treaty of 1899 it is expressly stipulated that in
all future distribution of Turkish territory no allot
ment should be made which might give the prepon
derance to one Balkan State over another. Under such
pohtical conditions the attempt of any one of the
Balkan States to assert its predominance in the Pen
insula would surely have brought it into conflict either
with Austria or Russia or with both. When after the
Balkan Wars Serbia, by the increase of its territorial
possessions, political prestige and military strength,
seemed or was supposed likely to play a greater po
litical role in the Peninsula than before, Austria was

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 123
not slow in opposing her with the terrible consequences
that we all know.
Constitutional government has been a new experi
ment in the pohtical life of the Balkan States, for
which they had no preliminary preparation. From
the darkness of a servitude for centuries they were
called suddenly into the light of freedom. No wonder
that at first they were dazed, just as a man would be
who comes out of a long confinement in a dark prison
into the full glare of daylight. It took them consid
erable time ere they found their bearings and got
accustomed to the new life they were beginning.
Taught by past experience, they looked upon govern
ment as an institution for rapacity, extortion and
oppression. The attitude they assumed towards it
was opposition, and I have no doubt that the mass of
the people inwardly transferred this suspicious, dis
trustful feeling even to their own government.
When in Bulgaria in the early years of its political
life party spirit ran high, debates in the parliament
were vicious, newspaper polemics virulent, there were
some foolish people who did not hesitate in saying that
it was better under the Turkish rule, because such
license was not tolerated. They would have preferred
a muzzled press, obedience to government orders with
out criticism, to the hberty of thought and speech,
which, in their opinion, was so demorahzing for the
public. The political dissensions which they witnessed
inspired them with doubts about the future, whether
a free constitutional government would prove beneficial
to the country. ,Such political doubters were found

124 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
likewise among the Serbians and Greeks in the be
ginning of their pohtical hfe; but time and experience
have shown their apprehensions to have been mis
placed. Constitutional government among the Balkan
peoples has not been wrecked; on the contrary, it has
been so firmly established that no personal or arbi
trary regime can supplant it. A saner press, a more
enlightened pubhc opinion, with which rulers and
governments have to reckon, a healthier atmosphere
among pohtical parties and sounder, more rational
conceptions of popular rights and duties are observable
in all the Balkan States. They have adapted them
selves to European culture and civilization and in the
development of their political and civil life have dili
gently striven to follow the examples set before them
by more advanced nations.
In judging of their progress, it would be unfair to
compare them with nations which, under totally differ
ent historical, pohtical and social circumstances, have
in the course of time evolved their constitutional in
stitutions. The Balkan peoples have had to organize
their government and administration in all its branches
with the raw materials which they possessed and with
out much outside help. Men with very httle knowl
edge and far less experience of government affairs were
entrusted with the arduous task of establishing an
orderly government in the place of what had existed
before. Constitutionalism has not always run smoothly
among the Balkan nations, regrettable incidents have
happened and blunders have been committed that
have retarded but not arrested their progress. Never
theless, no one who is acquainted with their past his-

POLITICAL PROGRESS OF THE BALKAN STATES 125
tory, with the difficulties, both external and internal,
with which they have had to contend, will be inclined
to judge them harshly or to assert that their self-gov
ernment has been a failure.

Lecture V.
EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY.
About seventy years ago a French pohtical writer
expressed the opinion that "the Ottoman Empire can,
with the help of the Powers, maintain itself, become
civilized and serve as a link for civilization between
Europe and Asia." Similar opinions and hopes were
expressed by writers of other countries. There was at
that time a widespread belief among the friends of
Turkey, engendered by some attempts at reformation,
that the Turks had realized the urgent necessity of
turning over a new leaf in their history. The failure of
the old institutions of the Empire to give it strength
and stabihty was patent to those Turks who could
think on the subject. These institutions had contribu
ted to the glory and expansion of the State under cir
cumstances that had greatly changed. European
States which formerly had stood in awe of the Ottoman
military power had grown stronger and were able not
only to resist Turkey with success, but also to impose
their will upon her.
As early as the eighteenth century the disadvantage
in which Turkey stood towards the other countries of
Europe was recognized by one of the Sultans, who
wished to introduce order into the empire and work
for its welfare; but he complained that there was no
body to help him in his good intentions. All his pashas
126

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 127
had become cormpt and degenerate, and thought of
nothing but palaces, high living and women.
The example of Russia, which under the reformatory
reign of Peter the Great had in a short time risen into
prominence among the European Powers, served no
doubt as an incentive to the Sultans of Turkey to
enter upon the path of reform and progress. By the
adoption of European manners and customs, military
and civil organization, Russia had all of a sudden
emerged from a state of semi-barbarism; why could
not Turkey do the same? If instead of remaining sta
tionary, as Turkey had done, the European nations
had outstripped her in military organization and civil
administration, Turkey, by following similar methods
and using the same means, could improve her condi
tion and strengthen her position among them. Re
forms were necessary for the regeneration as well as
the preservation of the country, and they were to be
modeled on the institutions obtaining in the European
countries. The grand admiral of the Turkish fleet,
Halil Pasha, one of the few men favorable to reforms,
on his return from Russia in 1830, said: "I come back
more convinced than ever that if we do not hurry to
imitate Europe, we should resign ourselves to go back
to Asia."
The chief concern of those who favored reforms was
to organize the military forces of the Empire on a new
basis, conformably to the organizations of the Euro
pean armies. By reorganizing the army, it was hoped
to make Turkey strong for defensive and, if need be,
for offensive purposes. The first serious effort in this
direction was made by Sultan Selim III about the be-

128 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
ginning of the nineteenth century. With the help of
some European officers he organized a small body of
infantry, cavalry and artillery, armed and drilled in
the European fashion. These bodies of troops were
to serve as the nucleus of the "new army," which the
Sultan intended to create. The innovations proved
repugnant to the Janissaries and the Ulemas or re
ligious leaders. A revolt took place; Sultan Selim was
deposed and soon after murdered. The reform, which
had cost him his throne and life, needed a firmer hand
and a stronger will for its execution, and both these
were found in his successor and nephew, Sultan Mah-
moud II.
For eighteen years the new Sultan had to put up
with the insolence of the Janissary Corps and mature
his plan for their destruction. Although he had ene
mies who would have liked to do away with him, he
managed by an adroit policy to maintain himself on
the throne and keep in check the turbulence of his law
less army. He saw clearly enough that so long as the
Janissaries existed, who had it in their power to raise
and depose Sultans and dictate the policy of the gov
ernment, the Turkish empire would be exposed to con
stant disorders and revolutions.
Recruited in the beginning of their history almost
exclusively from Christian children, who were torn
away from their families, the Janissaries had shown
their military prowess on numerous battlefields, and
had brought by their victories glory to the Ottoman
arms. They had carried the Turkish flag to the very
walls of Vienna and were the mainstay of the power

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 129
of the Sultans. Their recruitment from Christians
had long ago ceased, and their ranks were composed of
many undesirable elements, lawless and unruly. The
Greek war of independence, which was then going on,
and several former wars, in which the Janissaries had
given tokens of military degeneracy, showed that they
had lost their former warlike spirit and prestige.
For vindicating and strengthening the supreme au
thority of the Sultan as well as for paving the way for
any reformation of the government, the destruction
of the Janissaries was of imperative necessity. The
problem Sultan Mahmoud had to solve was the same
which more than a century before, Peter the Great
of Russia had to face, when by the destruction of the
streltsi, the praetorians or Janissaries of Russia, he
prepared the way for the reformation of the country.
On June 15, 1826, taking advantage of a riot on the
part of the Janissaries against an edict of his ordering
the formation of a body of troops partly by quota
from the Janissary corps to be regularly drilled, the
Sultan ordered and accomplished what his predeces
sor and uncle had failed to do. The Janissaries, whose
arrogance and disorderly behavior had made them
odious in the eyes of the people, were entirely exter
minated. Their destruction will always remain as
the chief reformatory act of Sultan Mahmoud's reign.
The military reorganization of the empire, which
was made possible after the disappearance of the Jan
issaries, does not concern the study we have in view.
If, as some one has remarked, Mahmoud thought "that
reform consisted in putting his soldiers into tight trou-

130 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
sers and epaulettes," he was greatly mistaken, as later
events- have amply proved. That he did not proceed
any farther in his reformatory designs may be partly
attributed to the internal troubles and external diffi
culties with which he had to cope. His intentions for
doing good to his country we have no reason to doubt.
"I wish to do good to my country," he is credited with
saying, "and reconstruct on the basis of religion and
according to the principles of the law, the edifice which
should assure happiness and peace to my subjects."
If by religion he meant Mohammedanism and by the
law the Sheriat or sacred law of the Koran and the
traditions, he, wittingly or unwittingly, pointed out
the two chief obstacles to the carrying out of his good
intentions and those of his successors.
In his determination to get directly acquainted with
the needs of his subjects and let them see that, as he
said, "the throne was not to be a terror, but a support
to them," he did something which for centuries past
no Sultan had done. He undertook at two different
times a trip through the provinces of the empire "in
order to put," to use the florid language of a Turkish
historian, "under the protection of his eternal shadow
the peoples and rayas of these countries, by making
shine before their eyes the light of equity and com
passion." European usages and customs found their way into
the capital. The Sultan set the example of European
dress, gave in his palace dinners, concerts and balls as
any European ruler would have done. These innova
tions produced great discontent among the conserva
tive and reactionary majority of the Turkish popula-

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 131
tion; but Mahmoud, who had now concentrated all
the power in his hands, was stern and ruthless towards
all who dared to oppose him.
It was reserved for his son, Sultan Med j id, to take
the most momentous measure for carrying out the re
forms of which his father had laid down the principle.
Four months after his accession to the throne he pro
mulgated in 1839 the famous Hatt-i-Sherif or sacred
edict which was to serve as the guide for the future
reformation of the Empire, and in which the princi
ples along which the reforms were to be effected were
stated. It is an interesting and curious document both
by what it avows and by what it concedes. In its pre
amble reference is made to the former grandeur and
might of the Empire and the well-being and prosperity
of its subjects, which are attributed to the precepts
of the glorious Koran and the laws of the Empire hav
ing been always respected. But since a century and
a half, the internal strength and prosperity of the
Empire have turned into weakness and impoverish
ment, because conformity to the sacred code of laws
and the regulations deriving therefrom had ceased. In
view of this, the Sultan deems it proper "to seek,
through new institutions, to procure to the provinces
which compose the Ottoman Empire, the benefit of a
good administration." These institutions should have
for their principal object the following three points:
1. Guarantees which will assure to his subjects per
fect security of life, honor and property.
2. A regular method of assessing and collecting the
taxes.

132 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
3. A regular method of recruiting soldiers and fix
ing the term of their service.
The perfect security of life, honor and property was
to be assured to all the subjects of the Sultan, of what
ever religion or sect they might be. They were to
enjoy this security without any exception.
Of the three points named in the imperial edict at
which the new institutions were to aim, this was the
most important and valuable in the eyes of the Chris
tians. Up till then neither the life nor the honor
nor the property of a Christian was considered safe
from attack or violence on the part of a Turk or the
government. It was most rarely that a Christian
could obtain justice in the existing courts. Granting
now such a security to the Christians and assuring
them of equal justice before the courts was tantamount
to putting them before the government and the sov
ereign on an equality with the Turks.
This measure was in direct opposition to the no
tions which the Turks had had till then about their
relations to the Christians. These ideas of their supe
riority over the latter were based not only on the fact
that they had made the Christians their tributaries by
the might of the sword, but also on what the precepts
of the Mohammedan religion taught them. When the
Sultan, in trying to justify before the eyes of his co
religionists the concessions he was making to his Chris
tian subjects, said in his edict that these concessions
were demanded "by the sacred text of our law," every
Turk knew and felt that he was talking impiety and
was ranging himself on the side of the ghiaours (in
fidels).

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 133
To the Turks the Sultan's edict must have been an
offence and an execration, although there were a few
influential men who favored the ideas which it ex
pressed. Among the Christians it raised high hopes
of an improvement in their political and civil status.
They thought that the Sultan, having publicly recog
nized and solemnly proclaimed the growing decline of
the empire and the necessity of a thorough reforma
tion of its administration, could not refuse them the
rights and privileges to which they were entitled. As
time went on, they came to look upon these rights and
privileges not as a boon conferred upon them by the
ruler's clemency or generosity, but as prerogatives due
to them by one who officially and repeatedly boasted
of regarding all his subjects, be they Mohammedans,
Christians or Jews, with equal favor and as the chil
dren of a common Father.
The edict of 1839 was hailed in Europe by the va
rious governments as a sure sign that Turkey had at
last undertaken seriously to reform and reorganize
her administration. As the Sultan showed a marked
predilection for French manners and models of re
form, French opinion was most favorable to him. In
the initiatory measures for giving effect to the projects
of his reforms he tried to copy French political and
civil institutions.
Amidst the general approbation of the Sultan's act
and the slowness of putting into practice his projects,
a discordant voice was heard from Austria, from a
man who at that time occupied a preeminent position
in the politics of Europe. In a long dispatch to the
Austrian ambassador at Constantinople, Prince Met-

134 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
ternich, Minister of Foreign Affairs, passed judgment
on the efforts at reformation in Turkey in terms that
must have been heartening to the Turkish conserva
tives and reactionaries and discouraging to the pro
gressive party at the head of which stood the Sultan.
In Metternich's opinion the Ottoman Empire is a body
in decadence, and of all the causes of this decadence
the one that has completed the source of its evils "is
the spirit of reform a V europeenne" which has taken
possession of the Sultans. The advice that he gives
the Turks is not to borrow from the civilization of
Europe institutions which do not tally with theirs,
nor follow models that have nothing in common with
the conditions of their Empire, nor imitate States the
fundamental legislation of which is in opposition to
the customs of the East. He urges them to establish
their government upon the respect for their religious
institutions, which form the fundamental basis of then-
existence as a power. As the foundation of the West
ern institutions is the Christian law, so let the Mo
hammedan law serve as the basis of the institutions
of Turkey. "Remain Turks," he says, "but then con
sult the Mohammedan law. Make use of the facilities
it gives you to be tolerant, and give to your Christian
subjects the most complete protection." Whether
Metternich was sincere in his advice, or whether he
offered it as a counterstroke to French or English in
fluence in Turkey, is quite immaterial. The advice as
we shall see, is both impracticable and illogical. He
evidently did not know much about the Turks and
Turkey, or else he gave it with the object of prevent-
ing any reforms in Turkey. The casuistry of it is

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 135
evident, and I have only quoted his views here in order
to show that even then, as subsequently, reforms in
Turkey found no favor in the political spheres of
Vienna. The reforms promised by the Sultan in his edict
were not reahzed, in spite of the measures that were
taken from time to time to give them a concrete form.
Various commissions were instituted to study their ap
plication, a Council of State to act as a legislative
body was established, codes of laws adopted from those
of France were promulgated, etc., but the essential
point — equality among the Sultan's subjects — which
would have given cohesion and unity to the various
elements of which his Empire was composed, remained
still a thing to be desired.
It would be, however, unfair to affirm that Sultan
Medjid's edict of 1839 produced no change whatever
in the administrative condition of the Empire. It did
correct some of the most glaring abuses and brought
some order and improvement in the formerly disordered
and disorganized state of the provincial administra
tion. The Sultan himself, nevertheless, had to ac
knowledge some years later that his good intentions
had not been fully realized and that something more
had to be done in order to increase the welfare, pros
perity and happiness of his subjects, "who are," he
said, "all equal in my eyes and equally dear to me."
In order to complete and amplify the guarantees of
the promises he had made in his former edict to all
his subjects, he issued a new edict dated February 18,
1856, which is more specific in the concessions and
privileges which it grants to the Christians. The prin-

136 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
cipal articles of this most important document that are
of special interest are those which affirm (1) security
of life, honor and property for all Turkish subjects;
(2) full hberty of conscience and worship for every
religious confession^ (3) nobody can be forced to
change his religion; (4) admission of Christians into
the civil and military service of the government; (5)
equality of all before the law; (6) admission of Chris
tian testimony before the courts.
It is generally asserted that this new edict was a
spontaneous act of Sultan Med j id. In the treaty of
Paris of 1856, which closed the Crimean war, it is
characterized as "spontaneously emanating from his
sovereign will." The fact is that it was imposed upon
him by the European Powers which had fought the
war in order to save Turkey from Russian aggression.
In declaring war upon Turkey, Russia justified her ac
tion by the declaration that she was warring for the
liberation of the Christians from Turkish misrule and
oppression, and for securing for them the immunities
and privileges so often promised but never carried out
by the Sultan. It was impossible for France and En
gland to ignore this plea of Russia, and leave the Sul
tan's Christian subjects in the lurch. They could not
deny that the former edict of the Sultan, promulgated
seventeen years before, had brought no improvement
in the condition of the Christians. It would have
been an outrage in the eyes of the Christians of Tur
key as well as of the other nations of Europe, not to
exact from the Sultan something more definite, more
binding. Had they omitted doing this, they would
have played the game of Russia, by alienating the

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 137
sympathies of the Christians in Turkey and by en
hancing Russia's prestige among them as being the
only Christian Power solicitous for their well-being.
The question was even raised at the Conference of
Paris, which drew up the treaty, whether, in order
to give the edict of the Sultan a greater binding force,
it should not be incorporated into the treaty as part
of it, and thus placed under the guarantee of signatory
Powers. The Turkish plenipotentiaries objected to
such a course on the ground that "it would compromise
the dignity of the Imperial Government by throwing
doubt upon its frankness and good faith." The Pow
ers accepted this plea as valid, and in acknowledging
in the ninth article of the treaty that the edict, a spon
taneous emanation of the Sultan's will, had been com
municated to them, they added the following clause:
"The Powers acknowledge the high value of this
communication. It is well understood that it could
in no case give a right to the aforesaid Powers to in
terfere, whether collectively or separately, in the rela
tions of His Majesty the Sultan with his subjects,
or in the internal administration of the Empire."
This has been really the standing condition on
which all Turkish promises have been accepted by the
European Powers. They gladly accept the promise,
but decline to interfere to put it into practice. This is
exactly what the Turks want: to accept their promises,
but not to press them to stick to them.
This clause was most unfortunate in more than one
respect. It bound the Powers to an engagement or
undertaking which they were soon to violate and have
repeatedly violated. The military intervention of

138 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
France in 1860 — only four years later — in the affairs of
the Lebanon, and the subsequent interventions of the
Powers whenever a Turkish crisis has arisen, showed
how little value they attached to the clause. It aug
ured ill for the execution of the promised reforms, be
cause it was left entirely in the hands and to the dis
cretion of the Sultan. The clause deprived the Chris
tian subjects of Turkey from the right of appeal to
the Powers in case the Sultan chose not to keep his
promises, and lastly, it supphed the Turkish govern
ment with a weapon to defend itself against foreign
intervention. "We are willing," said a grand vizier to
an ambassador once, and the remark has been fre
quently repeated since, "we are willing to hsten to
your counsels, but we cannot accept your intervention
in our internal affairs."
It is not strange that under such conditions the new
edict of the Sultan was doomed to non-execution.
When he died and was succeeded by his brother, a
much less capable and liberal-minded man, Turkey
had the good fortune to be governed by two very able
men, perhaps the most able diplomats she has pro
duced. If individual ability and resourcefulness could
have reformed the Empire, Ali and Fuad Pashas
should have been able to perform the feat; but they
failed. The government kept puttering, for that is
the proper expression, with reforms, but never set it
self resolutely to combat the evils which beset it. The
financial embarrassments grew daily worse, the impo
sition and distribution of taxes more burdensome and
unjust, graft and general corruption in the judicial

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 139
and other branches of the administration more shame
less. Writing eleven years after the promulgation of the
hatt-i-humayoun or imperial edict, the British consuls
in their reports testify that none of the promised re
forms have been faithfully carried out. Christians are
not admitted into the service of the government, ex
cept in rare cases and inferior positions. In the ad
ministrative councils charged with the duty of assist
ing the provincial governors, the Christians are always
in marked minority and even the few who have seats
in these councils are nominees and lackeys of the gov
ernors. Christian testimony is not accepted by the
courts, or is treated as of no value, and a Mohamme
dan, were he a murderer, has every chance of being
acquitted, if there are only Christians to testify
against him. A Christian, unlike a Mohammedan,
can be arrested and imprisoned, without a warrant
from a magistrate, on the most trifling accusation or
on mere suspicion.
In trying to find the cause of the failure of the re
forms to secure a better government for the country,
some enlightened Turks fixed upon the absolute and
autocratic power of the Sultan as the primary cause.
So long as the ruler exercised an unlimited authority
and every reform was considered as emanating from
his sovereign will, no permanent improvement, in the
opinion of these liberals, could be effected. The sov
ereign must have the assistance of the people in any
attempt he makes to benefit them, and ministerial re
sponsibility or the existence of some control cannot

140 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
be inconsistent with the good wishes he may cherish.
In quoting the aphorism of the French historian and
statesman, Louis Adolphe Thiers, that "the govern
ment of a single man is always dangerous, whatever
the superiority of the ruler may be," they maintained
that a constitutional regime with national representa
tion and ministerial responsibility was not contrary to
the Mohammedan religion.
The enunciators of these ideas, so at variance with
the current opinion among the governing class and the
Mussulman population of the Turkish Empire, were
the pioneers of the "Young Turkey" party. It was
a bold step indeed to assert by imphcation, if not di
rectly, that the Sultan, "God's shadow upon the
earth," as temporal ruler and as Caliph or Mahomet's
successor, was subject like anybody else to the weak
nesses of human nature, and needed in the exercise
of the power delegated to him by God, the advice and
cooperation of those who in his eyes were his humble
and obedient slaves. Hitherto reformation of the
country had been looked for from the throne; now it
was to be undertaken and carried on by the people
through a Constitution with national representation.
On December 23, 1876, amid a great deal of pomp
and parade and cannon-firing, the first Turkish Con
stitution was promulgated. By it individual, political
and civil hberty was granted to all the subjects of the
Sultan, equality before the law was assured and all
public offices were open to all, irrespective of their na
tionality or religion. In order to effect a fusion of all
the nationahties of the Empire, the distinctive na
tional names were abolished and they all were to be

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 141
known henceforth as "Ottomans." A Chamber of
Deputies and a Senate, to which the ministers were
responsible, were instituted to control the actions of
the government. The Mohammedan rehgion was de
clared to be the religion of the State and the Sheriat
was maintained as the sacred law of the Empire.
In a circular dispatch to the representatives of Tur
key abroad, by which he informed them of the pro
mulgation of the Constitution, the Minister of For
eign Affairs described it as "a great event which will
inscribe into the annals of the Ottoman Empire an
ineffaceable date." He spoke of the new institutions
as "founding in the Ottoman Empire the reign of
liberty, justice and equality, that is, the triumph of
civilization." Feeling evidently uneasy about the con
fidence people in Europe, taught by past experience,
might be willing to place in this new Turkish promise
of reformation, the minister solemnly declared: "The
Constitution is not a promise; it is a real and formal
act that has become the property of all the Ottomans
and the development of which can neither be arrested
nor retarded except by the will of the nation itself
joined to that of the sovereign." There is no diplomat
more capable of writing a diplomatic note or dispatch
than a Turkish minister.
There were few people either in Turkey or abroad,
outside of the rabid Turkophiles, who believed in the
seriousness of the constitutional regime or in the ability
of its advocates to carry it out. Everybody knew that
it was proclaimed with the sole object of taking away
from the European Powers all pretext for interfering
and demanding the execution of the reforms promised

142 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
in years gone by or formulating new demands. On the
very day that the Constitution was promulgated, an
International Conference of the Ambassadors and
other special delegates from the Great Powers met in
Constantinople to provide for an autonomous admin
istration of Bulgaria, where a few months before ter
rible massacres had taken place. To parry the propo
sition of the Powers, the Turkish government offered
them a Constitution for the whole Empire, which made
it unnecessary to demand special privileges for any
separate province.
Some of the provisions of the Constitution were so
framed as to be capable of various interpretations, as,
for example, the declaration that the press is free,
"within the limits of the law." I remember very well
that a comic Turkish newspaper, after the Constitu
tion was promulgated, had a cartoon representing a
man tied hand and foot with ropes, and a friend is
asking him : "How is it that I see you in such a plight?"
The man replies: "This is hberty within the limits
of the law." The consequence was that the next day
the paper was suppressed and the editor was sent to
prison. The system of election was such as to give the Turks
the majority both in the Senate and the Chamber of
Deputies. In fact, the first Christian members of
these two bodies were appointed by the government.
That the Constitution provided no guarantees for the
safety of anyone against arbitrariness was found out
by its very author, Mithad Pasha. Three months after
its promulgation, he was arrested and sent by order of
the Sultan into exile out of Turkey. The Parliament

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 143
was dissolved, never to be called together again, and
its members were ordered to leave the capital and go
home. Mithad Pasha, who was inveigled into return
ing from Europe, and some of the most prominent
members of his party who had not succeeded in fleeing
from Turkey, were later on banished into various parts
of the country and perished, as it is generally believed,
by the hands of hired assassins.
The Constitution was buried and for more than
thirty years the notorious Sultan Hamid reigned su
preme. Sly, dissembling, a religious fanatic imbued
with an inveterate hatred of the Christians, harsh and
cruel towards all who opposed his power, autocratic
by nature, he inspired terror into the hearts of Chris
tians as well as Turks. Surrounded by despicable
men, whose only recommendation to his favors was
their baseness and servility, he instituted a system of
espionage that had its ramifications throughout the
Empire. A most rigorous censorship weighed heavily
upon the press and all literary activity. The minis
ters, whom the Sultan appointed and dismissed ac
cording to his good pleasure, became simple register
ing clerks of his orders. The army and navy were
entirely under the control of the Sultan, and by in
trigue and favoritism he destroyed every esprit de
corps among the officers and tolerated only those who
were bhndly devoted to him. All government was
concentrated in the palace, and from there corruption
and arbitrariness spread among all the branches of the
administration. It was dangerous to pronounce the
word "reforms" or "Constitution," for it meant arrest,
imprisonment or exile.

144 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
It was under these adverse conditions that the
Young Turkey Party started its revolution of 1908 and
made a renewed effort to regenerate Turkey and save
it from destruction. The ease with which the revolu
tion was accomplished, without almost any bloodshed,
surprised every one, most of all its authors. The dis
content with the Hamidian regime was so widespread
that its collapse produced joy and relief among all
classes and nationalities. The popular enthusiasm
was unbounded. Turks and Christians fraternized to
gether, and embraced each other as the children of a
common fatherland. The former Constitution was re
established. "Liberty, equahty and justice" were in
scribed on the banner of the new revolution, and even
on handkerchiefs which people bought and displayed
by the thousand. A free press exultingly dilated upon
the new era which had this time really begun for all
the peoples of Turkey and the prospects that it opened
for the future regeneration and grandeur of the Em
pire. The new regime was to be conducted and con
trolled by the best intellectual forces of Turkey, the
men who by their learning and contact with European
civilization entertained broad views and liberal ideas
about the reformation of the country. If they also
should fail in this attempt, what hope was there of
any reformation or regeneration of Turkey?
Unfortunately for the execution of any reforms in a
state so complex in its constitution and so much in
need of radical changes, theoretical knowledge is not
the only prerequisite. Experience and practical sense
and a true realization of what is pressing and impor
tant to be done, and what is subsidiary, is essential.

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 145
It was, no doubt, a huge task that the Young Turkey
Party was undertaking, and it was not to be performed
by grandiloquent speeches or bombastic leading arti
cles in the newspapers. Very few of the Young Turks
had had any experience as statesmen or administra
tors; hence, in the beginning of their new regime they
had to fall back upon the older officials of the govem
ment, all of whom had occupied positions under the
rale of Sultan Hamid. Their sympathy with the prin
ciples of the Young Turks and their sincerity in co
operating with them to put them into practice, was
questionable. It is quite probable that the counter
revolution which took place less than a year after the
triumph of the Young Turkey Party and aimed at
the reestablishment of the Sultan's power and the
abolition of the Constitution, had the sympathy of
these men, or of most of them.
By the deposition of Sultan Hamid and the accession
to the throne of his brother, a kind-hearted weakling,
the Young Turks assumed the power of government in
their hands. No serious opposition to their plans
was to be anticipated from the new Sultan, who seemed
to be satisfied with reigning but not governing. Di
vergences of opinion among the members of the party
as to the methods of improving the condition of the
country and carrying out of the reforms could not be
avoided. The great majority of them were in favor
of a centralized administration, others proposed de
centralization as the best remedy. By centralization,
it was hoped, a greater cohesion and unity, almost a
fusion of the various nationalities, might be attained.
The question of abolishing some privileges and im-

146 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
munities, granted to the Christian church by the Con
queror of Constantinople and confirmed by later Sul
tans, was very unwisely and prematurely raised. It
was claimed that these privileges and immunities were
incompatible with the Constitution or made super
fluous by its promulgation. The Christians naturally
viewed with suspicion and distmst this attack upon
their church prerogatives, and assumed that the pro
mulgation of the Constitution was a subterfuge to de
prive them of what they already had. They had not
forgotten the fate of the Constitution which was pro
mulgated with so much eclat more than thirty years
before, while the new one had yet to prove its viability
and durability.
The first steps taken to initiate the institutions were
certainly not very encouraging. The elections for the
Parliament were a farce. The number of the Chris
tian deputies in it was determined by bargaining, and
the candidates agreed upon came out of the ballot
boxes, as by magic, the duly elected. It was very
funny to see on the day of the elections the ballot
boxes carried processionaUy through the streets of Con
stantinople, with flags flying and bands playing, as if
it was some religious procession going through the
streets, followed by great crowds shouting "Constitu
tion! Brotherhood and Liberty!" and so on. A great
deal of gerrymandering of the electoral districts in the
provinces was done, so as to secure the election of
Mohammedans. Elated by their revolution and the crashing of the
Sultan's absolute power, the Young Turkey Party be
came obsessed with megalomania. They indulged in

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 147
big talk about restoring the former glory of the Turk
ish Empire and recovering its lost provinces, a ques
tion which it would have been wiser not to have
raised. They not only dreamed of such a restoration,
but openly declared that Bosnia, Herzegovina, East
ern Roumelia, Crete and other territories, detached
from Turkey or enjoying certain privileges, should re
vert to it and benefit by the Constitution by having
their representatives in the Turkish Parliament.
The raising of this question showed short-sighted
ness and a want of comprehension of the pohtical sit
uation of the country. It precipitated events which
otherwise might have been postponed without impair
ing the viewpoint of Turkey or causing any detriment
to her real interests. To forestall any demand for the
restoration of these provinces, which would have cre
ated an awkward and difficult problem for the interest
ed parties, Austria hastened to proclaim the annexa
tion of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria its inde
pendence as a Kingdom, and Crete its union with
Greece. Turkey was powerless to assert its rights, and
lost territories to which she might, with some justifi
cation, have laid claim at some future date. Whether
her claims would have been better respected is an open
question. The Young Turkey Party at any rate would
not have exposed itself, in the very beginning of its
political career, in the eyes of its fellow-countrymen,
to the reproach of having injured the Turkish cause
by want of political foresight and tact.
In presenting this sketch of reformatory efforts in
Turkey I have omitted to touch upon the various
projects of reforms formulated by the European Pow-

148 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
ers, and which they vainly tried to recommend to or
impose upon the Sultan. My purpose has been to lay
before you what the Sultan or the political leaders of
the country have, of their own free will, attempted to
do for the reformation of the Turkish Empire. It did
not escape the notice of these reformers that the Em
pire was losing in strength and stability, and that so
long as the Christians living in it, who formed the
larger and most productive element of the population,
were kept in bondage, it could not regain either. The
task of reconciling the Turkish and Christian points of
view was not an easy one; but some way out of the
difficulty had to be found, otherwise the country could
not enjoy peace and tranquillity.
The bad administration affected not only the Chris
tians, though they felt its harshness and injustice more,
but the Turkish peasants also. A Turkish statesman
in a memorial to the Sultan in 1867 was bold enough
to tell him that his "subjects of every rehgious profes
sion were divided into two classes: those who oppress
without restraint, and those who are oppressed with
out pity," and that the Mohammedans, because no
foreign Power takes an interest in them, suffer more
than the Christians.
The introduction of reforms was to be a benefit to
Christians and Mohammedans, and this, if nothing
else, ought to have powerfully worked with the Sultan
and his advisers for their execution. Unfortunately,
neither imperial edicts nor constitutional and parlia
mentary institutions were able to produce the desired
changes for the better. It is true that Turkey since
Sultan Mahmoud was not such as it had been during

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 149
the time of the Janissaries and other legalized plun
derers that preyed upon the population. A more
regular administration had been established, admin
istrative divisions copied from those of France had
been introduced, various codes of laws had been com
piled, regular courts had been instituted ; but all these
innovations have remained only formal.
The principal trouble has always been how to rec
oncile the Mohammedan sacred law with the reforms.
One of the first requirements for a just and civilized
government is that there should be equality before the
law for all. This is just what the sacred law of the
Mohammedans does not recognize. It cannot allow
that a Christian is equal to a Mohammedan and can
enjoy the same privileges. Writing in The Fortnightly
Review of May, 1897, "A Turkish Patriot" says: "The
inferior situation assigned to non-Mohammedans in
the Mohammedan Muslim world is a question not of
ethics, but of law." All projects of reforms that have
been elaborated by Turkish reformers have main
tained the sacred law as a principle of government and
have pretended that it and the reforms are not con
tradictory. Their pretence has been proven false. If
there can be no equality before the law, it naturally
follows that the testimony of a Christian has no value
as against that of a Mohammedan. In civil and com
mercial law Christian evidence is admitted; but in all
cases that fall under the Sacred law, or where the
question is between the testimony of a Christian and
that of a Mohammedan, the latter has the preference.
A Turkish judge of high standing was heard once to
thank God that in all his career as judge he had never

150 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
condemned a Mohammedan on the strength of a Chris
tian's testimony.
Along with the sense of superiority or "spiritual
pride" which his religion gives him, the Turk is un
compromising towards the Christian, because he feels
and acts as the conqueror. The Christians are the
raya (which literally means a herd of cattle), and are
to be treated as the vanquished, without any legal
claims to rights or privileges, except those that the
conqueror may vouchsafe them. Although Turks and
Arabs profess the same religion, the latter have never
felt friendly towards the former. The domineering
spirit of the Turks, the oppression and exactions to
which they have subjected them, have goaded the
Arabs into periodical rebelhons against the Sultan's
authority. When the imperial edicts and the Constitution speak
of hberty of conscience and worship, of the freedom
of changing one's religious behefs, etc., they under
stand that these privileges are good for the Chris
tians, but not for the Mohammedans. In his endeav
ors to have the law repealed which punished with
death any Mohammedan apostate or any Christian
who after having adopted Mohammedanism wished to
return to his former faith, the British Ambassador,
Sir Strattford de Redcliffe, received the following reply
from a Turkish minister: "In pohtics we will always
be full of deference to the counsels of Europe; but in
the matter of religion we need to keep all our inde
pendence. Religion is the basis of our laws, the prin
ciple of our government. Neither the Sultan nor we
could touch that."

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 151
In proof of the tolerant spirit of the Turkish gov
ernment, one hears very often cited the fact that the
Christians in Turkey have not been interfered with in
their religion and that the Christian Church has even
been granted certain immunities. A Young Turk is
credited with the remark that had the Conqueror
Sultan Mehmed ordered the head of every Christian
above the age of 12 years cut off, there would have
been no Eastern Question. It is more than doubtful
if sparing the lives of the Christians or not forcibly
converting them to Mohammedanism was merely a
matter of clemency. There was expediency also in
it, for the Turks certainly could not have accomplished
their conquests or maintained themselves as a State,
if they had not had the Christians to work and slave
for them. Turkey would soon have become a desert
and famine would have been its normal condition.
The limitations which a constitutional or reformed
government puts to financial extravagance is not in
accordance with Turkish notions or tastes. This is
especially true of the governing class. The Turkish
official from the highest to the lowest is, as a rule, a
spendthrift. He likes show and pomp. In spite of
the shrinkage of the territory of the Empire and the
consequent diminution of its revenues, the Sultan and
those in authority have not desisted from maintain
ing large establishments full of servants, supernumer
aries and parasites. The money necessary for the up
keep of these establishments must be obtained by hook
or crook, and any reforms that would really put a stop
or limitation to its acquisition are not welcome. A
strict system of taxation that would make for the fair

152 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
assessment and equal distribution of the taxes has
never been enforced, for it would have diminished the
incomes of those who had the charge of collecting
them. The government has always been in financial
straits, practically bankrupt. Salaries, small and in
sufficient as they are, have been most irregularly paid,
sometimes only two months or three months, at the
most, in the whole year, and the number of the offi
cials has been kept disproportionately large.
Turkey is not without its intellectuals. There are
not a few men who are well-read, who have gone
through a college education, are acquainted with Euro
pean languages and history. Some of them are full of
ideas which they have picked up through their read
ing or through contact with Europeans. In their re
ligious beliefs they are mostly free thinkers, not to say
atheists. As theorists they are all one could wish.
They will talk glibly and fluently about liberty, equal
ity, fraternity, justice, about the bad conditions of the
country, the necessity of reforming and doing away
with the abuses, etc. For some reason or other, they
prove impracticable and incompetent when they un
dertake to put their ideas and theories into practice.
Nor are they able to throw off some of the prejudices,
that seem to be inherent in a Turk, when he is faced
with the problem of putting the Christian citizen on a
footing of equality with the Mohammedan. They evi
dently feel that in a fair competition the Christian
stands a better chance of success on account of his
diligence, progressiveness and mental aptitude.
In the debates of the Turkish Parliament there were
some enlightened Turks with advanced liberal ideas

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 153
who pleaded for perfect equality among all the sub
jects of the Empire. One of them even went so far as
to say that everyone should be free to follow his own
conscience and profess whatever religion he pleased.
The argument met with a great uproar not only on the
part of the forty or fifty clerical members, but even
members of his party took exception to his statement.
He was forced to retract his words by saying that when
he spoke of complete liberty of conscience he had in
mind the Christians and not the Mohammedans.
It is often said that it is impossible to dissociate
the temporal power of the Sultan as a ruler from his
spiritual attributes as a Caliph or successor of Mo
hammed. The Sultan is frequently compared to the
Pope of Rome, when the Pope cumulated temporal
and spiritual authority, and hence, it is claimed, no
constitution or reforms can be properly instituted
which, while limiting the temporal power of the Sul
tan, impair at the same time his spiritual prerogatives.
There is no greater mistake than to suppose that
the Sultan is like the Pope of Rome, just as it was a
mistake to represent the Tsar of Russia as the Pope
of the Russian Church. The Sultan has practically
no spiritual authority or power. He cannot do any
thing without referring the matter to the Ulemas, or
the religious learned men who are the expounders of
the law.
On the other hand, there are Turks, some of them
belonging to the religious class, who maintain that a
constitutional government is not contrary to the sa
cred law, that the Caliph is not a Mohammedan Pope
and that originally he did not possess unlimited tern-

154 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
poral or spiritual power. In his circular dispatch to
the representatives of Turkey abroad, informing them
of the promulgation of the Constitution in 1876, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs expressly stated that the
new institutions were not contrary to the Mohamme
dan religion because they had been fully approved by
the Ulemas or the religious teachers and leaders of
the people. The functions of a Caliph are three: He
commands the army in time of war, he dispenses jus
tice to the people in time of peace, and he leads in
the public prayers.
None of these attributes, it is asserted, can conflict
with regulations or institutions the object of which is
to secure good government and better justice. The
Caliphate, if rightly interpreted, cannot be adduced as
an obstacle to reforms.
The question of Turkish reforms is not one of ac
tual interest. Turkey in Europe has ceased to exist
outside of the capital and its environs. Whatever
modifications may be made in the actually existing
territorial arrangements of what was formerly called
European Turkey, it is not to be presumed that Turk
ish authority will be reestablished there. The subject
of reforms is, however, interesting in showing what
efforts have been made to save the Turkish Empire
from decadence and how futile they have proved to be.
In Asia Minor there is still quite a large area of ter
ritory left to the Turks where their authority will be
maintained. In this territory there will be a consid
erable number of Christians, who need to be protected
against misrule and arbitrariness, and their civil and
political interests safeguarded.

EFFORTS AT REFORM IN TURKEY 155
Will the Turks be able so to organize and conduct
their government as to satisfy the Christians by assur
ing to them real privileges and equal treatment? The
past experience with Turkish promises does not inspire
great hopes for the future. If the Turks, taught by
the catastrophe that has befallen their Empire, wish
really to preserve within their power what is left of it,
they should frankly and sincerely apply to Europe for
help to reorganize it. They should pocket their na
tional pride and allow foreigners to assist them in the
work of reconstruction. For them to imagine that they
will be able to work out a Turkish civilization or a
Turkish reformation on Pan-Islamic or Pan-Turanian
principles is a delusion.

Lecture VI.
THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE
NEAR EAST.
On December 9, 1913, the German Chancellor, Von
Bethmann-HoUweg, in a speech before the German
Reichstag, spoke of the attitude which Europe, after
the Balkan Wars, meant to take towards the future
development of Turkey. He declared that upon that
point there was absolute unanimity among the great
Powers. The Triple Alliance, i.e., Germany, Austria
and Italy, have "a personal interest," he said, "in
maintaining the integrity of Turkey." He assured his
hearers that this attitude of the Triple Alliance in re
gard to Turkey was "in accord with that of England,
or the three Powers of the Triple Entente." Pleased
evidently with this absolute unanimity of the Powers,
the German Chancellor, in predicting the future, said:
"From this general self-restraint we can hope that a
conflict for ascendancy among the Great Powers on
the subject of Turkey will not arise for a long time
to come."
Nine months had hardly elapsed after he pronounced
his hopeful speech when a terrible war broke over Eu
rope on the subject of the Near East, Turkey included.
The absolute unanimity of the Great Powers proved to
be a slender reed, which broke down before the whirl-
156

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 157
wind of their political passions and jealousies. The
Austrian ultimatum to Serbia in 1914, which was the
immediate cause of the war, did not aim merely at
humiliating Serbia by placing her under the heel of
Austria. It had for its object also the assertion of
Austro-German predominance on the Balkan Penin
sula, and the upholding of Austro-German pohtical
and economic influence in Turkey.
The integrity of Turkey, a phrase so often used and
abused by European diplomats, has ceased to be the
slogan of European diplomacy. The Turkish Empire,
as it existed before the World War, is practically de
funct, and whatever arrangements may be made for
the future, it can never be resuscitated. It is recog
nized by all now that the terrible catastrophe which
has befallen Europe and under the consequences of
which it is still staggering, had its origin in the Near
East. . The political questions in Europe, which might
have produced disagreements and frictions among the
Great Powers, were not of a nature to bring about a
great conflict among them, if the Near East question
had been eliminated in time. More than a hundred
years ago the French diplomat Talleyrand declared
that the center of gravity of the world was neither on
the river Elbe, nor on the river Adige, but down there
at the frontiers of Europe, on the river Danube.
All European statesmen, diplomats, political writers
and others have clearly recognized where the greatest
danger and menace to the peace of Europe lay, and
yet those who had the power and the means did very
little to avert it, They never grappled with the ques
tion seriously, never sought in real earnest to find a

158 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
satisfactory and permanent solution of it. All their ef
forts to settle it have been characterized by a from-
hand-to-mouth policy, by indecision and tergiversa
tion and by proposing palliatives without attacking
the real root of the evil. This conduct of the Great
Powers of Europe cannot be attributed to the obscur
ity of the question or to their ignorance of its essential
points. The question was clear enough, the sore point
of it was plain, and their efforts for at least a hundred
years past to find a remedy for the disease shows that
they were cognizant of it. Their failure to find a
peaceful issue out of the difficulty is a blot upon the
history of Europe and a disgrace to European states
manship. One might say that with the rise of Mohammedan
ism a straggle between it and Christianity began. The
Byzantine Empire had to wage bloody wars against
the encroachments and the spirit of conquest of the
new religion. The capture of the holy places of the
Christians in Palestine roused the religious ardor of
Western Europe. Crusades were undertaken to drive
Mohammed's followers from Jerusalem and rescue the
Christians who had fallen under their rule. These
crusades in the course of time lost sight of the origi
nal object which called them into being, and degen
erated into a lust for spoils, which did not spare the
very Christians whom they were supposed to free
from alien bondage.
The capture of Constantinople in the early part of
the thirteenth century by the Crusaders widened the
breach between the East and the West by embittering
the already existing antagonism between the followers

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 159
of the Eastern and Western Churches, and weakened
the Byzantine Empire for its later struggle with the
Turks. When the latter crossed over into Europe and
began their conquests in the Balkan Peninsula, which
were to culminate in the capture of Constantinople,
the Eastern and Western Christians, instead of joining
forces to fight them, spent their time in discussing
theological questions and wrangling over papal or pa
triarchal supremacy. The heroic attempts of leaders
like John Hunyadi, Vladislav of Poland, Scanderbeg
and some others to stem the Turkish advance with in
sufficient forces proved vain. The Turks had estab
lished themselves in Europe so firmly that it was im
possible to drive them back into Asia. With Con
stantinople in their hands they were able to extend
their conquests in all directions.
For more than two centuries success attended upon
the Ottoman arms. Thanks to their better military
organization and discipline, their implicit obedience
to and confidence in their leaders, and to their religious
fanaticism, the Sultan's troops swept all resistance be
fore them. When in 1521 Belgrade, the modern capi
tal of Serbia, fell into the hands of the Turks, the last
rampart against their invasion of Hungary was re
moved, and the way for their advance into the heart
of Europe lay open.
It is strange that just at the time that Turkish pow
er had reached its highest point, the Sultan should
have been willing to negotiate on equal footing with
a Christian Power, France. It was in 1536 that a
treaty of peace, friendship and commerce was con
cluded with the King of France, which is generally

160 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
known by the name of "capitulations." By this treaty
French subjects were granted freedom of trade in the
Ottoman territories, liberty of practicing their religion
without any molestation, the right of consular juris
diction over them, and exemption from being tried in
Turkish courts except in the presence of the consul or
one of his representatives. The treaty also stipulated
that the other European nations, as the English, Geno
ese, etc., whose governments had no treaties of friend
ship with Turkey, might navigate the seas under the
French flag and trade under the protection of France
in all the countries under Ottoman domination.
These capitulations were several times renewed and
amplified, French influence in Constantinople became
paramount and the King of France was recognized as
the sole protector of the Catholics in the East. The
privileges of free trade, diminution of duties on im
ports, consular jurisdiction, etc., granted to France
were later on extended to the other European Powers.
They lasted up to 1914, when Turkey, on entering the
late war, declared the abohtion of the capitulations.
While France by these conventions with the Ottoman
Government secured the full protection of her subjects
against abuses of the Turkish authorities, nothing was
said in them about the Christian subjects of the Sultan.
They were completely ignored.
From the moment that the Turks crossed over the
river Save into Hungary and pushed their conquests
towards Budapest, Austria had to bear the chief part
in opposing them. The opposition was not strong
enough to stop the advance of the enemy, but there
were already certain signs of the weakening of the

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 161
military ardor of the Turks, and instead of being "ever
victorious," as they had boasted before, they sustained
considerable reverses at the hands of Austria.
In the year 1683, when the furious attack of the
Turks on Vienna was beaten off by the Polish King
John Sobieski, Turkey lost the reputation of being in
vincible. Sixteen years later, she was obhged to sign
the treaty of Carloftsi with Austria, by which she
ceded to the latter Hungary and Transylvania, and to
Venice and Poland other territory. This treaty marks
the decline of the Turkish Empire, and all the efforts
to rehabilitate and raise its pristine glory have proved
unsuccessful. But neither in this treaty nor in those concluded
later (Posharovatz, 1718, Belgrade, 1739) by Austria
with Turkey were there any provisions made for the
relief of the Christians in Turkey. Austria fought
simply in her own defence and for her own interests.
Perhaps it could not be expected of either France or
Austria to interest themselves in the Christian sub
jects of the Ottoman government and insist upon the
amelioration of their lot. This certainly could not have
been done while the Turkish Sultans were elated with
their military successes, and would not have brooked
any outside interference with the treatment of their
Christian subjects. They, no doubt, would have re
sented such an interference even when they saw their
former power waning, for the Turkish Empire was far
from being on the point of exhaustion, as subsequent
events showed. Whatever excuse one may give, the
fact remains that the reverses which the Turkish arms
suffered did not change the condition of the Chris-

162 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
tians in the Balkan Peninsula. On the contrary, it
was made worse, for the Turks, exasperated by these
reverses, wreaked their vengeance upon the helpless
rayah, whom they rightly suspected of being in sym
pathy with their enemies.
By the eighteenth century Turkey had ceased to be
a menace to Europe, and the decline of its military
power was followed by the corruption which reigned
in its civil administration. Many of the provincial
governors had declared themselves quite independent
of the central government and were acting like petty
tyrants in their respective provinces.
While the condition of the Ottoman Empire was
growing precarious and critical, another State in the
north was coming on the political stage of Europe and
gaining in power and prestige. It was Russia, which
was destined to cause a great deal of worry and con
sternation both to the Turks and the European Pow
ers. Preoccupied with internal troubles and with wars
against the Tartars and her immediate neighbors, Rus
sia had shown up to the eighteenth century very little
concern with Turkish affairs.
With the accession of Peter the Great on the throne
Russia began to turn her attention to the south,
towards the Black Sea, in order to gain access to it.
To him is attributed the elaboration of a plan, known
by the name of "Testament of Peter the Great,"
which was to guide the future policy of Russia in the
extension of her territorial acquisitions in the east.
The plan is generally acknowledged to be apocryphal;
but even in the absence of such a plan, the geographi
cal position of Russia and the requirements of her ex-

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 163
pansion as a great and progressive State plainly indi
cated the policy to be followed.
Preparatory to entering into a war against Turkey,
Peter the Great in the early spring of 1711 issued a
proclamation in which he called upon "all who profess
the Orthodox faith, Greek or Roman, in Macedonia,
Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and especially the inhabi
tants of Montenegro, the Croats and other Christians
who are found under the tyrannical yoke of the Sul
tan" to rise and join with the Russian armies in fight
ing for the expulsion of the Turks. The proclama
tion found no echo among those to whom it was ad
dressed, and the war against Turkey would have
proved a terrible calamity for Russia and her Tsar, had
not the venality of the Turkish commander-in-chief
made the conclusion of peace possible.
The idea of Peter the Great of expelling the Turks
and freeing the Christians from Turkish rale became
the guiding policy of Russia, especially with and since
the Empress Catherine II. Wars between Turkey and
Russia became frequent, one might almost say hab
itual, and of all the European Powers Russia deserves
the credit of having done the most to weaken still more
the power of Turkey. The Christians in the Balkan
Peninsula, who are united to Russia by the ties of re
ligion and most of them by that of race, began to
look upon Russia as their future savior from political
bondage. The repeated victories that the Russian
armies won over the Turks gladdened their hearts and
enhanced the prestige of the Russian Tsar in their
eyes. They had not benefited by the advantages which
the other European Powers had derived from their

164 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
victories over the Turks. Russia was the only power
that had come out as the champion of their cause.
Whether she did this out of a pure desire for their wel
fare or had some ulterior motives of her own, did not
enter into their calculations. What chiefly concerned
them was to get rid of the harsh rule of a Power, so
alien to them in every respect.
The policy in regard to Turkey initiated by Peter
the Great did not at first arouse the suspicions and
fears of the other European Powers. Moreover, as we
have just said, he failed in the first attempt he made
to carry it out. Sixty years later Russian conquests
were pushed into Roumania of to-day and Bessarabia,
part of Bulgaria and the islands of the Archipelago.
The Russian fleet, operating in the Archipelago, would
most probably have entered the Dardanelles and Con
stantinople easily, had not the dilatoriness of the Rus
sian admiral given time to the Turks to put the straits
in a state of defence. Although her capital was saved
from a Russian occupation, Turkey had to acknowl
edge her defeat and sue for peace. At a small village
in Bulgaria, called Little Kainardja, Russian and Turk
ish plenipotentiaries met and signed on July 21, 1774,
the famous treaty which in the future was to serve as
the basis upon which Russia founded her claims to in
terference with Turkish affairs.
According to the terms of this treaty, Turkey bound
itself to open to Russian merchant vessels the straits
of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, and to treat the
Russian merchants on the same footing as the French,
who were then the most favored nation. Russia was
to evacuate Bulgaria, Wallachia and Moldavia, the

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 165
two latter retaining their status as privileged provinces
under the Sultan's suzerainty, with the understanding
that the Sultan's government will take into considera
tion any representations made in their favor by the
Russian Court or its ministers. Other articles of the
treaty stipulated that Turkey will protect constantly
the Christian religion and its churches; that it will not
impede in any way the free exercise of it, will not
put obstacles in the way of building new or repairing
old churches, and that it will pay due regard to any
representations made by Russia in favor of the Eastern
Orthodox Church.
The treaty produced a great commotion among the
European Powers which took an interest in the East
ern question. It was apparent to all that by its terms
Russia secured for itself a paramount influence in Con
stantinople, and assumed for her Court and ambassa
dors in Turkey the right of interfering with the inter
nal affairs of the country. The Austrian Ambassador
to Turkey (Thugut) in a report to his government
commenting upon the treaty declared that it makes
of Turkey a Russian province. The Powers, however,
took no steps to annul the treaty of Kainardja, be
cause at that time Prussia and Austria needed the help
of Russia in the iniquitous spoliation of Poland, the
first partition of which had already been effected two
years before. Austria even entered a few years later
into a compact with Russia to dismember Turkey, and
in case the Turks were expelled from Constantinople
the old Greek empire was to be revived under the rule
of Constantine, grandson of the Russian Empress
Catherine II. Whether Austria joined with Russia in

166 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
this famous plan of putting an end to the Turkish em
pire with a sincere desire of helping to carry it out or
with the desire of frustrating it is a matter of doubt.
The plan failed, and both Austria and Russia con
cluded separate treaties with Turkey, which put an
end to their war with it.
We may pass over the negotiations that Russia en
tered into with Napoleon I concerning the disposition
to be made of the Turkish empire and the settlement
of the Near East question. These negotiations led
to no result, and Russia, being more occupied with the
affairs in Central Europe, devoted her energies to the
destruction of Napoleon's power. At the Congress of
Vienna, convened in 1815 to rearrange the map of Eu
rope which had been so disturbed by Napoleon's con
quests, the Turkish question was relegated to the back
ground. Although, at the time that the Congress was
sitting, an insurrection was going on in Serbia, the
plenipotentiaries refused to take any cognizance of it.
They were occupied with much more important affairs
and did not wish to trouble themselves with a Turkish
province, where the Christians were heroically carry
ing on an uneven warfare with their masters for their
liberty. The Congress could not, however, altogether avoid
expressing an opinion on the Near East question.
There was no denying the fact that Turkey was de
clining and its internal situation growing worse and
more chaotic. By her participation in the straggle
against Napoleon Russia had gained great prestige in
Central Europe as well as in the East. The Christian

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 167
subjects of the Sultan were greatly impressed by the
Russian victories, and began to turn with more con
fidence their eyes towards the north, whence they ex
pected their salvation. To deprive Russia of the van
tage ground which she had gained by her former wars
and treaties with Turkey, and to prevent her from sole
interference with the affairs of Turkey, Austria, the
next most interested power in the future of the Turk
ish Empire, proposed to the Congress that the Euro
pean Powers should guarantee the territorial integrity
of Turkey. Russia naturally refused to agree to the
proposition; but as each one of the Powers was in
terested, for reasons easily understood, in the fate of
the territories of the Sultan, the integrity of Turkey
was declared to be necessary to the European balance
of power and, therefore, a matter of general concern.
Henceforth, the Near East question was to be a Euro
pean question, and its solution was to be sought in
European congresses and conferences, v/here, instead
of one, there were to be half a dozen cooks, who were
to prepare the broth.
The declaration that the question of Turkey was a
European problem, which was to be solved by the
Great Powers, had its advantages, if these Powers were
mindful of the interests of the people who inhabited
the country. Considering the geographical position of
Turkey, especially of its capital, which Napoleon I,
rightly or wrongly, pronounced to be "the key of the
world," no one Power of Europe could be allowed to
dispose of it. It might not have been to the advan
tage of the Christians of Turkey, either, if only one of

168 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
the great European Powers had the final say in their
future. They might have fallen from Scylla into
Charybdis. Subsequent events have amply proved that the doc
trine of the integrity of Turkey being a matter of
European concern did not save Turkey from being
drawn into wars, which have tended to exhaust her
and to impair that very integrity which the doctrine
was meant to insure. The action of the Congress of
Vienna opened the way for every question that con
cerned Turkey to be made a European question and
a menace to the peace of Europe. Over a dispute be
tween Greek and Roman Catholic monks at Jerusalem
about the Holy Sepulchre, which might have been
easily arranged, had good-will presided at the discus
sions of the Powers, the Crimean War was started in
1853. England and France united their forces to de
fend Turkey from Russian aggression, and after almost
three years of a bloody war, they imposed upon de
feated Russia the treaty of Paris of 1856. Russia was
deprived of all the advantages she had gained by her
previous wars and treaties with Turkey. The inde
pendence and territorial integrity of Turkey were
again solemnly proclaimed. Instead of Russian pro
tection of the Christians of the Turkish empire, the
treaty promised European protection, and forbade the
intervention of any Power in the internal affairs of
Turkey. To cripple Russia in any future designs upon
Turkey, the Black Sea was declared neutral and neither
Russia nor Turkey was allowed to keep a fleet in its
waters. It is questionable whether the Powers which signed

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 169
the treaty of Paris believed in its durability or in its
having secured a satisfactory settlement of the East-
em Question. They would have been very naive in
deed if they expected a great Power like Russia to sub
mit passively to the humiliating clauses of the treaty
that drove her back from the Danube and hampered
her naval development in the Black Sea. The Russian
Chancellor, Prince Alexander Gortchakoff, gave the
European Powers a broad hint when in one of his cir
culars after the treaty of Paris, in dehneating Russian
policy, he declared that "La Russie ne boude pas; elle
se recueille."
Taking advantage of the Franco-Prussian war of
1870, in which France, one of the principal signatories
of the treaty of Paris, was defeated, Russia obtained
the abrogation of the article which placed a limitation
to her maritime forces in the Black Sea. Seven years
later she entered into a war with Turkey, and by the
San Stefano treaty of 1878 tried to emancipate the
Bulgarians from Turkish rale, secure the independence
of Roumania, Serbia and Montenegro and reforms for
the amelioration of the condition of the Armenians.
The European Powers, guided by the principle of the
Eastern question being of general European concern,
replaced the San Stefano Treaty, by that of Berlin,
which modified and limited many of its provisions.
Bulgaria was divided into two, the region between the
river Danube and the Balkan Mountains being con
stituted into a Principality under the suzerainty of the
Sultan, while south of the Balkans, within a limited
area from which Macedonia and Thrace were excluded,
an autonomous province under the sovereignty of the

170 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Sultan was created under the name of Eastern Rou
melia. The reforms by which the inhabitants of Mace
donia, Thrace and Armenia were to be guarded against
Turkish misrule, and the necessity of which the Euro
pean Powers fuUy acknowledged, were to be carried
out under their supervision — we all know with what
results. The poor Armenians and Macedonians never
got the reforms which were promised to them.
Considering the complexity of the Near East prob
lem and the variety of interests involved in its solu
tion, no blame can attach to the European Powers for
treating the question as of international importance.
The claims of Russia to settle the question between
herself and Turkey may have been exaggerated, and
her demand to be recognized as the sole protector of
her co-religionists in Turkey and to speak in their be
half may have led to her acquiring such an ascendancy
in the Balkan Peninsula as to be inconsistent with the
interests of the other powers. In claiming for herself
the protection of the Orthodox Christians bound to
her by the ties of race and religion Russia was follow
ing the example of France, which claimed to be the
protector of the Roman Catholics in the Turkish Em
pire. Under the plausible excuse of striving after the
amelioration of the lot of the Christians, Russia may
have had only selfish motives, looking to her own
aggrandizement and the extension of her conquests.
Such designs have invariably been imputed to Russian
policy in the Near East, although unselfish and disin
terested philanthropy has rarely been one of the dis
tinguishing characteristics of European diplomacy.
Count Nesselrode, the Russian Chancellor, probably

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 171
spoke the truth when he wrote a hundred years ago:;
"Russia could perhaps give the last blow to the Otto
man monarchy ; but this monarchy, reduced not to ex
ist any longer except under the protection of Russia,
suited better the latter's political and commercial in
terests than all combinations which would have obliged
it, either to spread itself too much by conquests, or to
substitute for the Ottoman Empire states which would
not have delayed in rivaling with Russia in power,
civilization, industry and wealth."
A weak Turkey leaning upon a strong Russia was
what would have suited best the political plans of
Russian diplomacy. If the European Powers wished
to frustrate these plans, it was necessary that their
pohcy towards Turkey should have for its chief aim
to make Turkey strong, and to create on the Balkan
Peninsula such a state of things as to deprive Russia
of a pretext for interference. They were morally bound
to remove the causes which were working for the weak
ening and decline of their protege, and in assuming the
responsibility for the protection of the Christian sub
jects of the Sultan they assumed obligations towards
them which they were in honor bound to fulfill. How
they kept their promises, and how much improvement
in the condition of the Christians was secured under
the joint action of the Great Powers, will be made
apparent by the following brief survey of European
diplomatic action in Turkey.
In 1804 the Serbians, unable to endure any longer
the rapacity and outrages to which they were exposed
on the part of the Turkish marauders and Janissaries,
rose in rebellion. The insurgents distinctly stated that

172 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
they did not rise against the Sultan or his government,
but against those lawless bands of plunderers, who un
der the protection of influential pashas braved even
the Sultan's authority and committed untold mis
deeds upon the poor Christians. The sufferings of the
people were resumed in these short, but fraught with
meaning, sentences found in the address sent to the
Sultan: "Our lives, our religion, our honor are men
aced. Not a single husband who is sure to keep his
wife; not a father his daughter, not a brother his sis
ter. Monasteries, churches, monks, priests — nothing
is safe from outrages."
In their fervent appeal to the Sultan to free them
from the intolerable bondage in which they were pin
ing they acknowledge him as their ruler. "Art thou
still our King?" they wrote; "then come and free us;
or if thou wilt not save us, at least tell us so, that we
may decide whether to flee to the mountains and for
ests, or to seek in the rivers a termination to our mis
erable existence."
Even the Sultan could not deny the oppression and
outrages to which his Serbian subjects were exposed.
He gave orders that these cruelties should be stopped,
but the orders tended only to exasperate the Janis
saries and the other desperadoes and to make the lot
of the Serbians worse.
For ten years the latter fought bravely against the
superior Turkish forces and not unfrequently inflicted
severe defeats upon them. For the want of any help
from outside the rebellion collapsed, but only for a
short time. In 1815, the year of the meeting of the

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 173
Congress of Vienna, it broke out again. Hoping that
the plenipotentiaries at the Congress would be induced
to take an interest in Serbia and help her to some kind
of a political emancipation, a Serbian delegation ap
peared in Vienna to plead the cause of their people.
The delegation made it plain in their memorandum
that Serbia did not wish to throw off the sovereignty
of the Sultan, or to cease paying taxes to him. All
that they asked was that the lawlessness of the Turk
ish marauders should be curbed and security for life
and property should be procured for the people.
While the delegation was trying to lay before the
Congress the grievances of the Serbians, Serbia was
being devastated by the Turkish troops and horrible
atrocities were being committed upon the people, irre
spective of age or sex. One would have thought that
the plenipotentiaries at the Congress would have been
moved by what was taking place not very far from
Vienna, and of which they could not have been ignor
ant. Not they. The delegation wag refused admit
tance to the Congress or even to private interviews
with the plenipotentiaries. Their most pathetic ap
peals in the name of God, Christianity and common
humanity found no echo in the hearts of those who
were claiming to be their protectors. They all ex
cused themselves of being unable to do anything for
Serbia, because they were on good terms with the
Sultan. Russia was the only power that took some
interest in the representations of the delegation, but
was unable to urge them upon the consideration of
the Congress. For five years the Serbians were

174 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
obliged to continue the straggle for independence,
while the European Powers remained passive specta
tors and did nothing.
When the Serbian insurrection was drawing to its
close, the Sultan having agreed to grant the Serbians
some privileges, the Greek revolution broke out in
1821. The revolution was not unexpected, for several
years before a Greek revolutionary association, with
branches all over the Balkan Peninsula, was preparing
a general rising among all the Christians. The Greek
insurrection created a great stir in Europe, greater than
the Serbian had done, owing to the philhellenic senti
ments which the history and glory of the ancient
Greeks had aroused among the educated classes. The
European Powers, however, were not affected by this
sentimentality, and they refused to interfere between
the Sultan and his Greek subjects.
Exasperated by their failure to subdue the Serbians
and by the rising of the Greeks, the Turks had recourse
to their usual method of dealing with Christian revolts.
On Easter Sunday, while the Greek Patriarch was
officiating at high mass in the Patriarchal church at
Constantinople, Janissaries and a large mob of infuri
ated Turks entered the church, dragged the Patriarch
in his sacerdotal robes and hanged him at the door
of the church. Three archbishops and eight bishops
were butchered. For three days after the hanging of
the Patriarch the Greeks were indiscriminately at
tacked and massacred almost before the eyes of the
representatives of the European Powers. The massa
cres were extended to the provinces also. It is said that
about one hundred Greek ecclesiastics of high standing

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 175
and thirty thousand Greeks were ruthlessly slaugh
tered, while women and children were sold as slaves.
Greece itself, where the insurrection was going on,
was being devastated and depopulated by a cruel war,
in which massacres and outrages played the greater
part. To the appeals of the Greeks for protection, the
European Powers, induced by Mettemich, the Aus
trian Chancellor, who looked upon the Greeks as
rebels against their legitimate sovereign, turned a deaf
ear. When informed of the terrible things that were
happening to the Greeks in Turkey and Greece, Met
temich is credited with the cynical remark: "I do not
care much about the three or four hundred thousand
men hanged, strangled or impaled beyond our eastern
borders." The integrity of Turkey and the mainte
nance of the Sultan's sovereignty outweighed in his
mind every other consideration, even that of humanity.
The march of events, however, proved too strong
for European diplomacy, and the scandal of seeing a
whole Christian, country doomed to extermination,
without any intervention from Christian Europe to
stop it, was too ignominious to be tolerated. An An
glo-Russian agreement, supported also by France, in
favor of an autonomous Greece, under the sovereignty
of the Sultan, was presented to the latter and scorn
fully declined. This refusal was followed by another
agreement of the above-mentioned three Powers to im
pose their mediation between the beUigerents. The
Sultan again refused to accept their offer, claiming
that the Powers had no right to interfere in a matter
that concerned his relations with his subjects.

176 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
The battle of Navarino in 1827, in which the Turk
ish fleet was practically annihilated, failed to impress
the Sultan with the seriousness of the situation and he
replied by ordering a holy war. The three Powers —
England, France and Russia — whose fleets had fought
that battle, could not draw back, although in the eyes
of the British Government the disaster to the Turkish
fleet was "an untoward event." The landing of French
troops in the Morea and the declaration of war by Rus
sia against Turkey, promised a speedy and favorable
termination of the Greek revolution.
By the treaty of Adrianople of 1829, Russia forced
the Sultan to recognize the independence of Greece
and the autonomy of Serbia, Wallachia and Moldavia.
It took about nine years for European diplomacy to
settle the Greek question, a question, which, owing to
the geographical position of Greece, could have been
easily settled much sooner if the European Powers
had sincerely desired its settlement. Greece would
have been spared the misery and sufferings of those
nine years and the integrity of the Sultan's dominions
and his sovereignty would have been much better pre
served by the creation of an autonomous than an in
dependent Greece.
Of all the Turkish provinces the island of Crete has
been the one where constant unrest and commotion
have more or less existed during the past century. The
overwhelming majority of the population is Greek.
The Mohammedans, who are really Greeks converted
to Mohammedanism and whose vernacular is Greek
form a small minority. The island has been periodi
cally disturbed by revolts, accompanied by massacres.

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 177
That the complaints of the Christians from Turkish
misrule were well-founded and just was generally
acknowledged and not unknown to the European
Powers. The reports of their consuls in the island
made it plain that there could be no peace in it, so
long as conditions remained what they were. All these
reports agreed in representing the state of the island
as deplorable, the tribunals and the administration
openly and scandalously venal. The Christians were
exposed to all sorts of outrages and exactions both on
the part of the authorities and the Mohammedan
population. Driven to desperation, the Cretans revolted in 1866,
and during two years sustained the fight with the help
that they received from the Greek Kingdom. As a
result of this insurrection and the friendly interven
tion of the Powers to put a stop to it, the island of
Crete was granted by the Sultan certain privileges,
among which may be mentioned a general Assembly
chosen by the people to meet every year, and mixed
tribunals to judge cases between Christians and Mo
hammedans. These privileges might have helped to bring about
the pacification of the island, had the Turkish govern
ment faithfully carried out its promises; but it did
not. By degrees it curtailed these immunities or by its
inaction it made them nugatory. The European Pow
ers as usual refrained from interfering, although they
must have known that, unless the Sultan was kept to
his obligations, Crete would again be driven into in
surrection. At first Crete did not demand annexation to Greece;

178 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
what the people wanted was the establishment, under
proper guarantees, of a decent government that would
protect them from oppression and extortion. The de
mand of union with Greece came in 1885 when they
saw that it was the only satisfactory way of ridding
themselves of Turkish rule and of Turkish promises
that were never kept. The poor island had to go
through several years of unrest and suffering ere the
four European Powers — England, France, Italy and
Russia^ — determined to put an end to the troubles, and
landed detachments of troops at some of the ports.
In 1897 four admirals accomplished in a few days what
all the diplomats of Europe had not been able to do in
years, namely, they packed off by force from the island
the Turkish troops and officials, and Crete was freed
from Turkish rale. Its union with Greece was merely
a question of time and it came sooner than the Cretans
could have expected it.
The same causes which operated to cause discontent
in Crete, were operating in other parts of the Turkish
empire. It seemed to be a fatality that the central
government at Constantinople, though occasionally it
fell into the hands of capable men, was powerless to
check the abuses of the administration. These abuses
were nowhere more crying than in Bosnia and Herze
govina. At the time that these, two provinces came
under the Turkish domination, the large class of
nobles and landed proprietors, in order to save their
lives and property, accepted Mohammedanism.
Though related by race and language to the Christians,
for by origin they are Serbians and speak Serbian,
they were the most bigoted fanatics and the harshest

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 179
oppressors of their fellow-countrymen. The Christian
peasants were their serfs and there was nothing they
possessed that was not at the disposal of their masters.
No governor could bridle their lawlessness, for they
were so powerful with the various bands of retainers
and henchmen whom they kept in their castles and on
their estates that they defied the orders of the gov
ernor as well as of the central government. The
European Powers were well aware from the reports
of their consuls of the intolerable conditions existing
in the two provinces, and of the imminent danger of
troubles. In 1875 the Christians of Herzegovina sent a peti
tion to the Sublime Porte with the following moderate
demands: (1) the reduction of the sheep tax and the
tax for exoneration from mihtary service; (2) a prom
ise that no new taxes will be imposed; (3) the organi
zation of a native police force. No attention was paid
to the petition, whereupon an insurrection followed,
which soon spread from Herzegovina into Bosnia.
It was evident to everyone that Montenegro and
Serbia, owing to their proximity to the disturbed
regions and their racial and religious affinity with the
insurgents, would be drawn into the fray, unless the
insurrection was stopped and the demands of the peo
ple were granted. The possibility or probability of
similar outbreaks taking place in other parts of the
Peninsula was not excluded, for the disaffection was
not limited only to Bosnia and Herzegovina. A great
deal of time was wasted in writing diplomatic notes
and memoranda offering to the Turkish government
suggestions about the settlement of the question; but

180 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
as the representations of the Powers had no force be
hind them to back them, the Sublime Porte refused to
take them into consideration.
The following year (1876) a feeble attempt at an in
surrection in Bulgaria took place, which the Turkish
government could have easily put down with a few
battalions of regular troops. Instead of doing this,
bands of bashi-bazouks or irregulars, composed of the
worst elements among the Turkish population, were
let loose upon the revolted villages. With the con
nivance of the authorities, vengeance was wreaked upon
guilty and innocent alike, and from twelve to twenty
thousand people, among whom were many women and
children, perished by massacre.
Thanks to the efforts and investigation of the late
Eugene Schuyler, American Consul General at Con
stantinople, and MacGahan, an American newspaper
correspondent, the hideousness of the massacres was
made known to Europe, and evoked great indignation,
especially in England, among the people. The late
Mr. William Ewart Gladstone valiantly and nobly
took up the defence of the Bulgarians and demanded
that the Turkish administration, with all its officials,
"bag and baggage," should be cleared out of the prov
ince they had so long oppressed and polluted with
their misdeeds.
It was no longer possible for the European Powers
to maintain a passive attitude towards affairs in the
East and content themselves with mere diplomatic
notes. An international Conference was called at Con
stantinople in December, 1876, of which the most
promment members were the Russian Ambassador and

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 181
the late Marquis of Salisbury. The object of the Con
ference was to draw up a plan for the future adminis
tration of the Turkish provinces in Europe, especially
Bulgaria. According to this plan, in the elaboration
of which Mr. Schuyler had no small share, autonomy
was to be granted to Bulgaria (including also Mace
donia), Bosnia and Herzegovina, under the sovereign
ty of the Sultan.
The Turkish Government naturally refused to ac
cept the propositions of the Powers, for it knew that
their agreement and cooperation would not go to the
extent of enforcing them. It is absolutely certain that
had the Powers presented a united front, and made it
unmistakably plain to the Sultan that they would, if
need be, use force to carry out their plan, the Sultan
would have yielded at the mere threat. Bulgaria,
Bosnia and Herzegovina would have continued for
many years to form part of the Turkish empire, and
the integrity of the Sultan's territory would have been
assured. The Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 would
have been avoided, and the dismemberment of large
regions from which even the Treaty of Berlin could
not save Turkey, would have been prevented. It was
a partition of Turkey, what that treaty really sanc
tioned, by depriving it of its vassal principalities and
half of its European possessions, and yet the late Earl
of Beaconsfield, ironically or in real earnest, called the
work of the Berlin Congress "a consolidation of the
Turkish empire."
The conclusion to be drawn from the above short
sketch of the way the European Powers have dealt
with the Near East Question is, that the force of cir-

182 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
cumstances was too strong for them to enable them
to maintain absolutely the principle of the integrity
of the Turkish empire and non-interference with the
internal affairs of Turkey. The latter principle espe
cially was the most reprehensible, for it left the Chris
tians to the tender mercies of the Turks. The Chris
tians could not defend themselves against oppression,
because they were forbidden to possess or carry arms.
European intervention was the only means of keeping
under restraint the evil passions and the arrogant
domineering spirit of the Turks.
Four years after the signing of the Treaty of Paris
of 1856, moved by the massacres of the Cathohc
Maronites by the Druses in the Lebanon, in Syria,
France sent, in spite of the Sultan's protest, a mili
tary expedition to restore order. That was the way
France observed the principle of non-interference with
Turkish affairs. This led to the autonomy of the Leb
anon, and so long as the administration was kept clear
of interference or intrigues from Constantinople the
country enjoyed such a peace and prosperity as it had
not known before.
Whatever political privileges have been secured for
the Christian peoples of the Near East have been se
cured by the interference of one or more of the Euro
pean Powers. No Christian nation in Turkey could
have obtained single-handed its political emancipa
tion. How much bloodshed, misery and suffering the
Near East would have been spared had the European
Powers acted more promptly and energetically in deal
ing with the various problems they had to solve! The
integrity of Turkey was not inconsistent with the

THE EUROPEAN POWERS AND THE NEAR EAST 183
granting of those elementary rights and privileges of
security of life, property and honor which the Chris
tians of Turkey demanded and which every decent
government is bound to secure for its subjects.
Instead of looking facts in the face and acknowledg
ing that the discontent of the Christian subjects of
the Sultan was due to bad administration, the Euro
pean Powers evoked the bogy of Russian agents pro
vocateurs and Pan-slavist machinations. If there
were really such underhand influences at work, it was
because they found receptive minds ready to submit
to them. People who are contented with their lot and
happy under their conditions of hfe are not apt to
abandon what they possess and plunge into the woes
and uncertainties of revolution, no matter from where
the instigation may come. The best way to paralyze
any outside intrigues against the safety of the Turkish
empire was to remove the causes upon which they were
founded. Ample proof of this was afforded by those
territories of Turkey where the people had been en
dowed with some kind of home-rule, and where, in the
place of the former lawlessness, law and order pre
vailed. Turkey might still have existed as an Em
pire, if the European Powers had, by extending such
self-government to the various provinces, secured their
attachment and loyalty to the Sultan's person. To say
that their selfishness, jealousies and hatreds did not
allow them to do it, neither justifies nor excuses their
conduct: it rather makes their sins of omission and
commission blacker.

Lecture VII.
THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION AND THE
PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
When I was asked to give this course of lectures be
fore the Institute of Politics I expected to deliver
eight lectures, and the seventh lecture I meant to de
vote to the Balkan Wars and the World War as they
affected the Balkan peoples. But as the number of
lectures was curtailed I have had to include in my
seventh and last lecture a kind of condensation of the
two lectures which I had planned to give as the sev
enth and eighth.
My lecture tonight will be on the Balkan Confed
eration and the decisions of the Paris Conference
bearing upon it.
The foundation of the Balkan Alliance of 1912 was
laid on the twenty-ninth of February (or, new style,
March thirteenth) of that year, when Bulgaria and
Serbia signed a treaty of friendship and alliance. This
Serbo-Bulgarian alliance was supplemented by a Greco-
Bulgarian defensive alliance concluded on May 29,
1912, at Sofia. By Article II of a secret annex to the
Serbo-Bulgarian treaty of alliance the distribution of
territory that was to be taken from Turkey in case of
a successful war was regulated. The general principle
on which this distribution was to be made is stated in
184

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 185
the following clause: "Serbia recognizes the right of
Bulgaria to the territory east of the Rhodope moun
tains and the river Struma; while Bulgaria recognizes
a similar right of Serbia to the territory north and west
of the Shar mountains." In regard to the territory
comprised between the Rhodope and the Shar moun
tains, or, in other words, Macedonia, a detailed line
of delimitation was fixed, beyond which Serbia under
took to ask for nothing. The larger part of Macedonia
was thus adjudged by the treaty to Bulgaria, and only
a portion of it, known by the name of the disputed
or contested zone, was left to be arbitrated upon by
the Emperor of Russia. The Serbo-Bulgarian treaty
was signed on the part of Serbia by Dr. Milovanovitch,
Minister of Foreign Affairs; but owing to his death a
few months before the beginning of the Balkan War,
the conduct of the Serbian foreign affairs and the ex
ecution of the treaty was left in the hands of Pash-
itch, the prime minister of Serbia.
On September 30, 1912, the Balkan States— Bul
garia, Greece, Montenegro, and Serbia — ordered a
general mobilization of their armies, preparatory to an
expected war with Turkey, which actually broke out
less than three weeks later. Various attempts were
made by the European Powers to prevent the war, but
they proved unsuccessful. Among these attempts was
one made by Count Berchtold, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Austria, who in the preceding month of
August had proposed a plan of autonomous adminis
tration based upon decentralization along ethnic lines.
In a circular letter dated September 28, that is, two
days before the mobilization, Pashitch, the Serbian

186 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
prime minister, writing on Berchtold's proposition,
urged upon the Serbian representatives and consuls
abroad to work for the introduction of reforms in Old
Serbia and the ethnic delimitation of this region. In
this delimitation he included districts and towns which,
five and a half months before, the Serbo-Bulgarian
treaty had declared to be by right Bulgarian and upon
which Serbia bound herself to lay no claim.
Contrary to the expectation of many military ex
perts, the Balkan States proved more than a match
for Turkey. Their armies in a very short time de
feated and routed the Turkish forces, Macedonia was
occupied by the Greek and Serbian troops, while the
Bulgarians were still fighting the bulk of the Turkish
army in Thrace. No sooner had the Serbians estab
lished themselves in Macedonia than they made a dash
through Albania for the Adriatic Sea, and on Novem
ber 28, 1912, occupied the seaport of Durazzo. Aus
tria, however, opposed so determinedly their exit upon
the sea, that on December 20 Serbia had to evacuate
the town and withdraw from the seacoast.
It is a mystery what the motive of the Serbian Gov
ernment was in sending its army to occupy a town in
habited by Albanians and situated in purely Albanian
territory. Serbia was very anxious, it is true, to get
an outlet on the sea, the lack of which was very in
jurious to her commercial expansion and interests.
But her Government must have known that Austria,
if not also Italy, would have strongly opposed Serbian
domination on the Adriatic. The evacuation of Du
razzo was also due to the fact that Russia refused to
back up Serbia in her effort to gain access to the

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 187
Adriatic seacoast. In the opinion of the Russian
minister of foreign affairs, as expressed in a telegram
to the Bulgarian Prime Minister, "necessity obhges
the Serbians not to seek any territorial acquisitions on
the Adriatic coast," as "the Triple Alliance had defi
nitely decided the question" . . . and "obstinacy on
the part of Serbia might give rise to very serious
complications." The Serbians have accused the Bulgarians of not
having supported them in their attempt or desire to
gain an outlet on the Adriatic Sea. The Bulgarian
Prime Minister has refuted the charge by declaring
that the Serbo-Bulgarian treaty does not provide for
the securing of a seaport for Serbia on the Adriatic
or for extending Serbian domination over Albania.
The provision that the treaty makes is that in case
Austria should attack Serbia, Bulgaria is bound to
send an army of at least 200,000 men to the help of
Serbia to act offensively or defensively against Aus
tria. Neither when the Serbian army started on its
expedition to the Adriatic, nor when, in view of Aus
trian opposition, it withdrew from it, was Bulgaria
informed of Serbia's plans. Had Serbia persisted in
the occupation of Durazzo and been attacked by Aus
tria, Bulgaria would have been obliged to go to her
assistance in accordance with the terms of the treaty.
"The truth is," says Mr. Gueshoff, the Prime Minister
of Bulgaria, in his book, "The Balkan Alliance," "that
when we conveyed to them (the Serbians) the urgent
counsels of Russia, we invariably declared that we
should do everything humanly possible to perform
our duty under the treaty of alliance."

188 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
An interview of the Serbian minister at Paris
with the Russian ambassador in the same city in the
early part of December deserves to be mentioned, as
of great significance in judging of the designs of Serbia
in the drive she made for the Adriatic. The interview
took place almost immediately after the Serbians had
occupied Durazzo and before they had made up their
minds to withdraw from it. In this interview the
Serbian minister declared to the ambassador "that in
the event of non-compliance with the Serbian demand
for sovereign ownership of an Adriatic port, Serbia
would be forced to look for compensation beyond the
frontiers fixed by the Serbo-Bulgarian treaty." The
Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sazonoff, in
having been informed of the above declaration of the
Serbian minister, expressed his disapproval of it to
the Russian minister at Belgrade in the following
words: "A violation of the territorial understanding
between the two countries, which has been attained at
the cost of so much labor, can find in us neither sym
pathy nor support."
To the contention of Serbia that circumstances had
arisen which rendered the revision of the treaty neces
sary, the Bulgarian Government replied by denying
that such was the case. In order to find a way out of
the difficulty the Bulgarian Government, two months
before the outbreak of the second Balkan War, pro
posed to Russia to settle the dispute by arbitration.
Serbia procrastinated in giving her consent to arbitra
tion, as it becomes apparent from a telegram of
Sazonoff, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs,

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 189
dated June 18, 1913, i.e., eleven days before the be
ginning of the Second Balkan War.
In my opinion, Serbia had no desire or intention to
submit the question in dispute to arbitration. She
demanded the revision of the whole treaty. Bulgaria
insisted upon the carrying out of the treaty except the
question of the contested zone, which was subject to
Russian arbitration.
Even if Bulgaria had agreed to have the whole treaty
revised and arbitrated upon, I doubt if the Serbian
Government would have accepted the arbitration un
less it gave Serbia the lion's share. My doubt is based
upon the following facts:
(1) As early as March, 1913 (please remember that
the Second Balkan War began June 29, 1913), the
Roumanian minister at Belgrade reported to his Gov
ernment the following: "All those with whom I have
spoken tell me that, from the general to the last soldier,
the Serbians under arms refuse to abandon Monastir
and the other towns claimed by the Bulgarians in
virtue of the treaty of alliance, and would rather be
killed by Savoff (the Bulgarian acting commander-in-
chief) than give up what they have conquered."
(2) On April 19, 1913, the Serbian minister at
Bucharest made a formal proposal to the Roumanian
Government for the contracting of an alliance against
Bulgaria. In the month of May, Serbian and Greek
delegates were sent to Constantinople to try to induce
the Turkish Government to join in an ahiance for the
same purpose.
(3) On May 29, 1913, Serbia concluded a secret

190 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
treaty of alliance with Greece, which, after partitioning
the occupied territory in Macedonia between the two
States, stipulated that the Serbo-Bulgarian and the
Greco-Bulgarian frontier lines would be established on
the principle of the effective occupation and the equili
brium among the three States. The two contracting
parties also engage not to enter into any private un
derstanding with Bulgaria regarding the division of the
territories of Turkey in Europe, to lend one another
constant aid and to act always in accord in mutually
supporting their territorial claims and the boundary
lines dehneated in the treaty.
(4) The military party in Serbia, with the Prince
Regent at its head, openly declared that the army
would under no circumstances evacuate Macedonia.
General Boyanovitch, the Serbian Minister of War, in
making the above declaration said that he dechned all
responsibility for the consequences that might result
from the disregard of this temper of the army, hinting
of course at a military revolt or pronunciamento. Gen
eral Poutnik, the commander-in-chief of the Serbian
army, was more outspoken. On May 9, 1913, while
the negotiations for arbitration were still going on, he
addressed a memorandum to the Prime Minister of
Serbia, in which he declared that "it would be a ter
rible iniquity and an unpardonable sin, a treason to
the most important interests of the fatherland, to cede
to Bulgaria a single inch of the occupied territory."
Both in Serbia and Bulgaria public opinion was
greatly excited over the delay in settling the question,
and mutual press recriminations were not wanting. In
order to make thedispute intelligible to the people of

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 191
the two countries, the Bulgarian Government proposed
to that of Serbia to make the treaty public. The
proposition was rejected, because evidently the Serbian
Government did not wish to have its people know the
obligations it had contracted in regard to Macedonia.
The discontent in the ranks of the Bulgarian army
grew more pronounced every day. The soldiers, who
are really the people, tired and disgusted with being
kept under arms and inactive for such a long time in
the trenches and the open country, demanded either
war or demobilization. On the night of June 29, 1913,
orders were given, unbeknown to the Bulgarian Cabi
net, to the second and fourth Bulgarian armies to
attack, without a previous declaration of war, the
Serbians and the Greeks. The order, which has been
rightly called "criminal folly," started the Second
Balkan War, which proved disastrous to Bulgaria, led
to the Bucharest treaty of August 10, 1913, by which
Bulgaria was dispossessed not only of Macedonia and
Eastern Thrace, but also of Southern Dobrudja, the
most fertile part of Northern Bulgaria. This territory,
containing a population of about 275,000, was annexed
to Roumania, which entered the Second Balkan War
unprovoked and unjustifiedly, although the Rou
manian portion of the population is less than seven
thousand. The firm conviction of the Bulgarian people was
that Serbia had played them false, and that from the
very beginning of the war, when Macedonia was occu
pied by Serbian troops, she set herself to persecuting
the Bulgarians and forcing them to declare themselves
Serbians. The feeling against Russia was also very

192 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
strong, for everyone believed that Russia had not ex
erted her influence determinedly enough to force Serbia
to keep her treaty engagements and to prevent Rou
mania from attacking Bulgaria while the latter was
engaged in fighting with Serbia and Greece. Russia
in 1878 by the treaty of San Stefano had drawn the
boundaries of the territory peopled by Bulgarians;
now, she was believed to have receded from her former
position and to have transferred her favors to Serbia.
The spoliation of Bulgaria at the Conference of
Bucharest was laid at the door of Russia, although
eleven years before she had concluded a military con
vention with Bulgaria undertaking to defend with ah
her forces the integrity and inviolability of her terri
tory. The anti-Russian feeling in Bulgaria gained in
strength when in May, 1914, the Russian Tsar paid
an official visit to the Roumanian King. At a banquet
given in his honor, the Tsar toasted the King as the
"pacifier" of the Balkan Peninsula, and accepted the
honorary colonelcy of the Roumanian regiment which
had been the first to cross the Danube in the invasion
of Bulgaria the year before. Considering that the ter
ritory of which Roumania despoiled Bulgaria had been
freed from Turkish rule thirty-five years before by
Russia, the action of the Tsar created discontent and
indignation even among those Bulgarians who were
avowed friends of Russia.
Such were the feelings and dispositions of the Bul
garian people towards their neighbors and Russia at
the outbreak of the world war in 1914. Bulgaria, like
Greece and Roumania, declared her neutrality, which

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 193'
she could have maintained, if the war were to be of
short duration, but not, if it were to be prolonged three
or four years. When, three months after the beginning
of the war, Turkey entered it on the side of Germany,
it was evident to any one that, owing to her geographi
cal position, Bulgaria would be unable to remain neu
tral and sooner or later must be drawn into the conflict.
. Bulgaria had no treaties or conventions that bound
her to the one or the other side : she was free to choose
the side she would espouse. Attempts were made quite
early in the war to win her over to the side of the
Allies. The demands of Bulgaria were that the wrong
done her by the treaty of Bucharest should be righted,
or, in other words, that Macedonia, which Greece and
Serbia had appropriated, and the Dobrudja, annexed
by Roumania, as well as the Enos-Midia line in Thrace
assigned to Bulgaria by the London Conference, should
be restored to her. The Allies could not make Greece,
Serbia, or Roumania yield the territory demanded of
them. In the propositions which they presented to
Bulgaria on their part, the Allies agreed to the imme
diate occupation of the line in Thrace by Bulgaria,
which meant that Bulgaria would have had to fight
against Turkey for securing this boundary. In regard
to Macedonia they promised to guarantee to Bulgaria,
at the end of the war, possession of a limited part of
it, but even this promise was made subject to the two
conditions: (1) that Serbia shall receive equitable
compensation in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and on the
Adriatic coast, and (2) that Bulgaria shall not occupy
any part of Macedonia until the conclusion of peace.
In regard to the cession of the seaport of KavaUo, the

194 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Alhed Powers pledged themselves to use their efforts
to assure the cession, while in regard to Dobrudja they
expressed themselves "disposed to look with favor
upon the negotiations which Bulgaria and Roumania
may desire to open for the settlement of the question."
The Bulgarian government considered the proposals
too vague and unsatisfactory, and demanded more
precision in their statement. The Allies could not or
would not commit themselves any further for fear of
alienating the sympathies and losing the actual or
potential cooperation of the three Balkan States. Ne
gotiations, therefore, for inducing Bulgaria to join the
Allies reached a deadlock. Popular feeling in Bulgaria
was favorable to neutrality, if that could be main
tained, but if Bulgaria had to enter the war, the
people would have preferred to be on the side of the
Allies. Whatever ill-feeling there might have been
against Russia for her past conduct towards Bulgaria,
religious and racial ties were too strong to make the
people at large willing to take up arms against her.
Besides, Bulgarians had not forgotten that they owed
their political emancipation to Russia. On the other
hand, there was no Bulgarian officer or soldier who
could have been induced to fight shoulder to shoulder
with Serbians, Greeks, or Roumanians, unless they
were made to let go the booty they had unjustly seized
from Bulgaria. No Bulgarian was inclined to put any
faith in the promises or pledges of Serbia, Greece, or
Roumania, and the Bulgarian government interpreted
aright popular feeling when it declined to accept vague
declarations and demanded definite and effective resti-

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 195
tution of territory recognized as ethnically Bulgarian.
Bulgaria could not very much longer delay in declaring
her attitude, for the Central Powers ui their anxiety
to open communication with Turkey would not have
hesitated in invading and marching through the coun
try. It is not to be denied that the influence of the
ex-King Ferdinand, with a Cabinet of Ministers
avowedly pro-Austrian and distinguished by docility
and subserviency to the royal will, was the determining
factor that drove Bulgaria into an alliance with the
Central Powers.
The mutual distrust that existed between the Em
peror of Russia and the King of Bulgaria, and the
intimate ties which bound the latter to the Austrian
Emperor and Court, offer an explanation of the King's
conduct. Popular feeling might have overridden the
will of the King and counteracted his intentions, if the
Allies had presented more definite and concrete terms,
which would have raUied public opinion in Bulgaria to
their cause.
Those of you who wish to know more about the
conduct of the negotiations between the Allies and
Bulgaria might with profit read "Balkan Problems and
European Peace," by Noel Buxton and C. L. Leese.
Mr. Buxton is an Englishman who was sent to Bulgaria
and the other Balkan States to try to win them over to
the cause of the Allies. You will also find a chapter
devoted to the same subject in the book, "The Secrets
of the Crewe House," in which are described the means
used and the propaganda carried on under direction
of Viscount Northcliffe. I cite these two books espe-

196 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
cially because they are written by Englishmen who
certainly have no reason to be very tender-hearted
towards the Bulgarians.
Valuable information on the Balkan League is sup
plied by the articles published in The Times (Lon
don) of June 4, 5, 6, 11, and 13, 1914, by the late
James D. Bourchier, for more than thirty years corre
spondent of the paper in the Balkan Peninsula, thor
oughly acquainted with the Near East question, and
who played no small part in bringing about the forma
tion of the Balkan Alliance of 1912.
The refusal of Serbia, Greece, and Roumania to
make any concessions facilitated the task of the Central
Powers to draw Bulgaria to their side. That Bulgaria
entered the war solely with the object of securing her
rights over territory that by official and international
acts had been recognized as Bulgarian is proven by the
fact that she refused to send any soldiers either to the
western front in France or the eastern front in Galicia
to help the Central Powers. Bulgarian troops were
employed only in the Balkan Peninsula in defense of
Bulgarian interests.
The prevaUing sentiment among the soldiers about
the object of the fighting they were called upon to do
is best illustrated by their refusal to cross over to the
left bank of the Danube and invade Roumania. They
declared that the territory across the river was Rou
manian, that they had fought the Roumanians on this
side of the Danube in order to drive them out of Bul
garian territory, but, having accomplished that, they
saw no reason for invading their territory. It was with
the greatest difficulty that a few regiments were in-

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 197
duced into going across and taking part in the invasion
of Roumania.
Another fact which proves the reluctance with which
the Bulgarian soldiers went into the war has been
brought out in an official memorandum presented by
the Bulgarian Government to the Peace Conference at
Paris. In this document the statement is made that in
order to strike terror into the hearts of the soldiers and
break any opposition on their part, the least infringe
ment of military discipline was most severely punished,
and during the war six thousand men are said to have
been court-martialed and executed. For three years,
from 1915 to 1918, Bulgaria remained in the war.
During that time the chief task of the Bulgarian army
was to defend the territory it had occupied in Mace
donia against the attacks of the Allies. The relations
between Germans and Bulgarians, in spite of the
effusive declarations of rabid Germano-philes, were
getting more tense and less friendly. The entrance of
the United States into the war and the proclamation
of the fourteen points of ex-President Wilson produced
a great impression upon the people and the army of
Bulgaria. The principles of self-determination, of
government by consent of the governed; the declara
tions that "the relations of the several Balkan nations
to one another should be determined by friendly coun
sel along historically established lines of allegiance and
nationality" ; that "every territorial settlement must be
made in the interest and for the benefit of the popula
tions concerned, and not as a part of any mere adjust
ment for compromise amongst rival States," and that
"aU weU-defined national aspirations must be accorded

198 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
the utmost satisfaction without introducing new or
perpetuating old elements of discord and antagonism"
— these and other similar statements concerning the
future readjustment of political conditions in the
Balkan Peninsula and elsewhere were read and ap
proved by the Bulgarian people as not incompatible
with their demands and the objects for which they
had entered the war. The soldiers informed their
officers and the commander-in-chief that after Sep
tember 15, 1918, they would not fight any longer, be
cause they are perfectly satisfied with letting the cause
and claims of Bulgaria be settled on the basis of the
principles proclaimed by the President of the United
States. I make this statement on the authority of the
Bulgarian commander-in-chief, which I find corrobo
rated by the German General Ludendorff, who in his
work, "My War Memoirs," writes: "A few days after
the 15th (September, 1918), a secret report of the
French general fell into* my hands, which made it
evident that the French no longer expected any re
sistance from the Bulgarian army." When the Allied
forces started their attack upon the strongly fortified
Bulgarian positions, very little serious resistance was
offered. Whole regiments refused to fight and, throw
ing down their arms, left the battlefield or surrendered.
It is well to bear in mind the events that I have
tried to sketch briefly in discussing the question of a
Balkan Confederation and the bearing of the decisions
of the Paris Peace Conference for the settlement of
the Balkan question upon the future prospects of such
a Confederation.
The Balkan Alliance of 1912 was undoubtedly the

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 199
first great union of the Balkan States for common
action, dictated by a community of interests. In the
early part of the last century there were signs of a
common feeling among the Christians of the Balkan
Peninsula, which was due to their being fellow-suffer
ers under the Turkish rule. When the Greek war for
independence broke out, thousands of Bulgarians and
other Christians hastened to join the ranks of the
Greek revolutionists. The movement is to this day
known in Bulgaria as that "For the Faith."
Sixty years ago, during the reign of Prince Michael
of Serbia, efforts at a union between Serbia and Bul
garia were made, in which Serbia hoped to play the
role of a Balkan Piedmont. Concrete propositions
were made for the liberation of the Bulgarians from
the Turkish rule and the establishment of a South-
Slavic Kingdom, under the rule of the Serbian Prince,
composed of Serbia and Bulgaria, including in the
latter Thrace and Macedonia. The plan, however,
came to naught. According to the French diplomat
Edouard Engelhardt, while treating with the Bul
garians for a Serbo-Bulgarian Union, Serbia was se
cretly negotiating a treaty with Roumania, the object
of which was the partition of Bulgaria between the
two. During the eighties of the last century when Bul
garia, led by the late Stambolloff, was struggling
against Russian predominance in the country, a pro
posal was made to the King of Roumania of a personal
union between the two countries. Fearing to displease
Russia the King dechned the offer. A plan to form
a Balkan Union with Turkey at its head was also

200 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
proposed by the Bulgarian Revolutionary Committee,
which sought a personal union under the Sultan. In
1891 the Greek statesman Tricoupis proposed to
Serbia and Bulgaria a plan of an alliance by which
Turkey was to be partitioned. A Hungarian project,
attributed to the late Count Andrassy, favored the
creation of a Zollverein or Customs Union of Eastern
Europe under the direction of Austria, which was to
be the prelude to a Balkan Confederation. An Aus
trian plan bespoke the formation of a Confederation
of the Danubian States and those of the Balkans under
the presidency of Austria, modeUed on that of the
German Empire.
The idea of a Balkan Confederation found many
supporters outside of the Balkan Peninsula. In the
beginning such a union was urged as a barrier to Rus
sian and Austrian advances into the Peninsula or upon
Constantinople. Later on it came to be considered as
the best means of setthng the Near East question, and
by raising the slogan "the Balkan lands for the Balkan
peoples," it was sought to prevent foreign interference
with Balkan affairs. Addressing himself to the Balkan
people, Mazzini wrote: "Unite yourselves in one Con
federation and let Constantinople be your Amphyc-
tionic city, the city of your central powers, open to aU,
slave to none." The Italian statesman Crispi declared
that "the Italian National party would like to see the
establishment of a Balkan Confederation with Con
stantinople for its capital. . . . The Mohammedans
may find a place in it, if they wish to live as brethren
and not as masters; but the Tsar must stay in his

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 201
possessions of to-day and the Sultan must go over to
Asia." In discussing the Balkan situation in 1886, the In
ternational League of Peace in its meeting at Geneva,
Switzerland, passed the following resolution: "The
most efficacious and surest means of escaping sordid
lusts would be a federative organization sanctioned
and neutralization guaranteed, by Europe." The late
Serbian statesman Ristitch expressed the opinion years
ago (in 1884) that the Balkan Confederation was not
a chimera, and that, owing to the awakening of the
sentiment of nationalities, "the unity of the Balkan
Peninsula is not possible now except under the form
of the union and the federation of the Balkan peoples."
The desirability of a Balkan Confederation is patent
to everyone and the possibility of its realization seems
to be taken for granted, and yet no serious efforts have
been made to realize it. The reason is that under the
name of Balkan unity, Balkan federation, or Confed
eration, people have understood different things. In
the sixties of the last century, during the reign of the
Serbian Prince Michael, Balkan union or federation
meant for the Serbians a political constellation in
which Serbia was to be the star of first magnitude.
She was to play on the Balkan Peninsula the role Pied
mont had played in the unification of Italy. For the
Greeks Balkan federation meant the realization of the
"Great Idea," the resuscitation of the Byzantine Em
pire with Constantinople as its capital. As a means
for the carrying out of this plan the Hellenization of
the Balkan people was necessary. The refusal of the

202 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Bulgarians to submit to the process of denationaliza
tion is censured by Greek historians as having upset
the plan of attaining unity through the elimination of
national distinctions.
Leaving Roumania aside as not being, properly
speaking, a Balkan State, there were up to the year
1878 three Balkan States: Serbia, Greece and Monte
negro. Although of the same race, language, and
religion, Montenegro and Serbia were not on very
friendly terms. Their disagreement proceeded chiefly
from the claims they laid upon leadership among the
Serbian speaking people of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Personal and dynastic considerations tended to strain
the relations still more. The relations between Serbia
and Greece were maintained as normal, with some
efforts for an understanding about the future disposi
tion of the territory comprised within European Tur
key. The understanding did not lead to any practical
results, and when in 1876 Serbia declared war on
Turkey, Greece did not render her any aid.
By the creation of the Bulgarian principality in
1878, a new Balkan State became a political factor in
the Peninsula. If Serbia had ever cherished the idea
of territorial expansion by appropriating regions in
habited by Bulgarians, that idea had now to be aban
doned. From the very beginning Serbia showed her
unfriendly disposition towards the new Bulgarian
State, by claiming and, by Austrian help, obtaining
the annexation of territory inhabited by Bulgarians
and recognized as Bulgarian. When in 1885 Eastern
Roumelia or Southern Bulgaria declared its union
with the Principality of Bulgaria, Serbia, without a

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 203
formal declaration of war, invaded Bulgaria on the
plea that the union disturbed the balance of power in
the Balkan Peninsula. No Serbian interests whatever
were injured or violated by the union, for it affected
no Serbian population.
How far Serbian ill-feeling towards Bulgaria ex
tended is best shown by Professor Tsviitch of Belgrade
University, a prominent Serbian writer, deprecating
even the simple declaration of Bulgaria as an inde
pendent Kingdom as a destruction of the equilibrium
in the Peninsula! In his opinion "it is a mistake to
aUow the existence in the Balkan Peninsula of a State
twice as big as its neighbor. There will be no peace,
unless the territorial equilibrium between these states
is strictly observed." It is not necessary to dweU upon
the relations existing between the Greeks and Bul
garians, as the subject has already been dealt with in
my lecture on the Church Organization. The erection
of a Bulgarian State did not tend to improve those
relations. The joke of the matter is that a few years earlier
Serbia had done just the same thing — declared herself
an independent kingdom. Evidently, by that act she
did not "disturb the equilibrium of the Balkan Pen
insula." The greatest stumbhng block to Balkan Confedera
tion has been and is the territorial adjustments along
national lines. It is not altogether true to say that
the dissensions over territorial redistribution are due
to outside intrigues. Foreign powers, especiaUy those
immediately concerned in the future fate of the Balkan

204 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Peninsula, have availed themselves for the furtherance
of their own selfish purposes, of the already existing
national aspirations or lusts and have tried to stimu
late them. A union among the Balkan States would
certainly not have been welcome to these powers; but
their influence in preventing such a union would not
have been great, if the way could have been found for
an amicable settlement of the territorial or national
claims of the various States. How these claims are to
be settled is the point upon which agreement has been
very difficult. In order to make my opinion clear, I
may take a concrete case, that of Macedonia, to which
both Bulgarians, Greeks, and Serbians lay claims. I
do not exaggerate when I say that in the opinion of
all who have written on the subject knowingly, dispas
sionately and without any bias, and according to official
acts and documents, the great majority of the Christian
population of Macedonia has been recognized as Bul
garian. By Article XXIII of the Berlin Treaty of 1878
Macedonia was to be granted autonomy or home-rule
under Turkish sovereignty. An International Com
mission, composed of delegates of the Great Powers
of Europe, worked out the organic statutes for its ad
ministration. The opposition of the Turkish govern
ment and the lukewarm pressure exerted upon it by
the Powers have deprived Macedonia of the enjoyment
of self-government, to which the solemn promise of
an international treaty entitled it. This self-govern
ment might have been secured if the three Balkan
States which profess to have interests in Macedonia
had acted together and insisted before the signatory

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 205
powers of the treaty to carry out their promise. Bul
garia is the only one of the three that has invariably
stood for and demanded the execution of the twenty-
third article and the granting of autonomy to Mace
donia. Neither Serbia nor Greece has ever been in
favor of Macedonian autonomy; on the contrary, they
have opposed it. Why? Because they knew that their
claims rested upon a weak foundation, and that their
inconsistency would be easily exposed by a free ballot
and a free press.
With the disappearance of Austria as a great Power
and with the hope that Russia will one day find herself
not as an autocratic and bureaucratic Power but as a
democratic and liberal State, there is no danger of a
Balkan Confederation meeting with outside opposi
tion. The danger is from within and not from with
out: from want of solidarity, of linguistic unity, of
national cohesion, of common ideals and aspirations.
The policy that these Balkan States have tried to
follow tiU now has been how to get something away
from one another and how one could benefit at the
expense of his neighbor. No small share of responsi
bility and reproach falls upon the Balkan politicians
for the part they have taken in stirring up instead of
appeasing troubles between their peoples. I am in
clined to believe that were the plain people of these
Balkan States allowed to come together and talk over
their differences, they would be much more likely to
reach an agreement upon disputed points. "There is no
room," said the late Serbian politician Garashanin, to
a Bulgarian diplomat, "there is no room in the Balkan
Peninsula for two Slavic States. Either you wiU have

206 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
to knock us down or we will have to knock you down."
Contrast with this language of the politician the fol
lowing words of Levski, a man of the people and a
champion of Bulgarian liberty: "We Bulgarians desire
to live like brothers with all our neighbors, particularly
with the Serbians and Montenegrins, and with the
Roumanians with whom our destiny is closely con
nected, and together with all of them we wish to form
a federation of free States."
At the end of the World War the Peace Confer
ence at Paris had a good opportunity of settling
in a satisfactory way the Near East question, which
has caused so much trouble to Europe. The results
of the decisions of former Congresses and Con
ferences that had dealt with the question ought to have
dictated to the recent Paris Conference wiser and saner
counsels. In deciding upon the adjustments made
necessary by the war, the Powers in whose hands the
decision rested should have been guided by the two
following considerations: first, to make as fair a settle-.
ment of the Balkan question as was possible, and
second, to impose that settlement upon friend and
foe alike.
Some people deny that any fair settlement of the
Balkan imbroglio is possible, because the Balkan
Peninsula is such a tangle of nationalities. The state
ment, in my opinion, is exaggerated, but whether it is
true or not can be proved only by a thorough investi
gation. When in 1878 political freedom was to be
granted to the territory south of the Balkan mountains,
which the Bulgarians claimed to be essentiaUy Bul
garian in population, the Greeks by elaborate statistics

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 207
and finely worded memoranda tried to prove that south
of the Balkan mountains there were no Bulgarians, and
only Greeks had existed there from time immemorial.
The very first census taken disclosed the fact that the
Greeks numbered over fifty thousand as against over
six hundred thousand Bulgarians. In the ensuing elec
tions the Greeks secured only two deputies to the
Provincial Parliament out of a total of fifty-seven.
The Peace Conference, however, has not sought a
fair settlement of the Balkan troubles. Its decisions
bear the mark of vindictiveness, in the opinion of those
who from personal experience are competent to judge
of its actions. In the distribution of territory it has
confirmed the mistakes and injustice of the Bucharest
treaty of 1913 and has even aggravated them. It has
left the whole of Macedonia under Serbian and Greek
rule, although in the opinion of impartial and com
petent observers like Lord Bryce, who has travelled
in the country, "the population of Southern Macedonia
all the way from Okhrida and Monastir on the west as
far as Serres on the east, that is to say, all the way from
the lake of Okhrida to the rivers Vardar and Struma,
is inhabited by a Bulgarian population." It has given
to Roumania Southern Dobrudja, the granary of
Northern Bulgaria, where, as I said, out of a popula
tion of about 275,000 Turks and Bulgarians, who over
forty years had lived happUy and contentedly under
Bulgarian rule, there are less than 7000 Roumanians.
For strategic reasons territory inhabited by 92,000
Bulgarians and no Serbians has been annexed to
Serbia, bringing thus the Serbian frontiers to within
cannon shot of the capital of Bulgaria. Western

208 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
Thrace where the Greek population, according to a
census taken by the French military authorities, forms
less than one-fourth of the population, has been given
to Greece. Three-fourths of the population, consisting
of Turks, Bulgarians, and others, in vain begged the
Conference not to hand them over to Greece, but
either to continue the French administration or restore
Thrace to Bulgaria.
The promise to Bulgaria of an outlet on the iEgean
Sea is illusory so long as the sovereignty over the port
is to be in Greek hands. At any rate, up to the present
nothing has been done to give effect to the prescription
of the treaty relating thereto. The treaty stipulations
about the treatment of minorities by granting to them
church and school privileges have remained so far a
dead letter. Bulgarian schools all over Macedonia and
Thrace have been closed, and the teachers have been
expelled. No Bulgarian newspapers or hterature of
any kind is allowed to reach the people, and everyone
who dares to stand up for his Bulgarian nationahty is
persecuted and maltreated.
While the mUitary forces of Bulgaria have been
limited by the treaty to 20,000 soldiers, and her arma
ments have been curtailed, those of her neighbors are
left intact, which causes a constant menace to the
safety and security of the country. Besides, Bulgaria
is not allowed to have military conscription. Her
army must be recruited from volunteers, who engage
to serve for twelve years, a costly system and impos
sible to apply in a country 82% of whose population
are farmers.
The Powers that signed the treaty of Sevres have

THE BALKAN CONFEDERATION 209
already recognized the mistakes in it and have tried
to correct them. Will they do so with the treaty of
NeuiUy which they imposed upon Bulgaria? Unless
they do, the situation that the Conference has created
in the Balkan Peninsula will not be stable and wiU
not make for peace and concord among the Balkan
peoples. Already signs are not wanting of the Great
Powers trying to play one Balkan State against an
other. Already separate treaties and agreements are
being entered into by Serbia, Greece and Roumania
directed against Bulgaria. The cry of "the Balkan
lands for the Balkan peoples" will find its true justifi
cation when the territorial adjustments along national
lines have been fairly settled, not when it serves as a
cloak for the coalition of some Balkan States for the
spoliation of a weak neighbor or overlordship in the
Peninsula. The decisions of the Peace Conference in regard to
the Balkan Peninsula were taken without any refer
ence to the wishes of the people concerned. The
inhabitants of Thrace and Macedonia were denied the
right of a plebiscite which was given to Silesia and the
district of Klagenfurt and provided for the future for
the Saar Valley. The petitions of the people were
relegated to the waste paper baskets of the Conference.
Instead of brushing aside aU statistics presented by
interested parties as tainted and ordering an investiga
tion, under proper guarantees for impartiality, either
now or at some future date, in order to ascertain the
truth, the Conference based its decisions upon one
sided statistics, the veracity of which can be and has
been disproved.

210 NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS AND CONDITIONS
The conditions created by the Conference will not
insure peace to the Balkan Peninsula nor pave the
way to a closer union among the Balkan States. This
could have been done if the territorial arrangements
had been fairly and justly made, or if disputed regions
had been put under an international control and their
inhabitants given eventually the fair chance of de
claring freely their wishes. I believe that if such a
course had been foUowed, by which national aspira
tions could have been reconcUed, and national rivalries
mitigated, the Balkan States, once the cause of in
trigues and mutual distrust and discord removed,
would of themselves have come to the realization of
the necessity and the benefits of a Balkan Confedera
tion. I wish to express to you my deep gratitude for the
very kind and benevolent attention which you have so
kindly given to me.

INDEX

Adrianople, treaty of (1829), 46,
176; political emancipation of
Serbia and Greece by, 106.
Albania, 25 ; Serbian activities in,
in First Balkan War (1912),
186.
Albanians, settlements of, in
Macedonia, 24-25, 64.
Albigenses, sect of, 56.
Alexander Obrenovitch, King of
Serbia, 109-110.
Alphabet, the Slavic, 28; com
posed by Cyril, 31, 53; the
Glagolitic, 53.
American schools in Near East,
93-94.
Anti, the Slavic name, 2.
Armatoloi in privileged villages
of Balkan countries, 105.
Aromani, people called, 25 ; Rou
manian propaganda among, 26.
Athens, description of prepara
tory school in, 76-77.
Athos, Mount, monastic broth
erhood of, 39; academy found
ed at, 82.
Austria, Serbian population in,
24; relations between Turkey
and, 160-161; effect of disap
pearance as a great Power, on
Balkan Confederation, 205.
Balkan Alliance of 1912, 184,
198-199.
Balkan Confederation, desirabil
ity of a, 199-202; obstacles to,
202-203; the matter of terri
torial adjustments along na
tional lines, 203-210.
Balkan Peninsula, first Slavic in
vasions of, 2; appearance of

Bulgars in, 5-7; settling of
Serbians and Croats in, 15;
the Turk as policeman of, 97-
98
Balkan War, First, 185-187; Sec
ond, 189, 191.
Belgrade, captured by Turks,
159; treaty of (1739), 161.
Berchtold, Austrian Minister of
Foreign Affairs, 185, 186.
Berlin, Congress of (1878), 107;
treaty of, 169.
Bethmann-Hollweg, speech of,
156.
Black Sea, neutrality of, guar
anteed by treaty of Paris, 168.
Bogomils, sect called, 43; unor
thodox literature propagated
in Bulgaria by, 56; teachings
of, 56-57.
Boris, Bulgarian King, 32.
Bosnia, Turkish abuses in, 178-
180.
Boulgaris, Eugene, 18th century
teacher, 82.
Bourchier, James D., authority
on Balkans, 196.
Brigandage among Christians of
Balkan countries, 21-23.
Bryce, James, quoted, 207.
Bucharest, treaty of (1913), 191;
mistakes and injustice of, con
firmed and aggravated by
Peace Conference of Paris, 207.
Bulgaria, a Slavic kingdom in
10th century, 8-9; introduction
of Christianity into, 9; founda
tions of a literature laid in,
9-10; chief points in history
of, 13-14 ; becomes a Turkish
province in 1393, 14; history

211

212

INDEX

under Turkish rule, 18-23; in
troduction of Christianity into
(9th century), 31-32; loss of
independence by, 36; devel
opment of Christianity and
Church organization among,
29-38; schools in, 48, 86-87;
Exarchate of, 50; development
of literature of, 54-55, 60-61;
Bogomil literature and teach
ings in, 56-57; literacy of army
recruits in, 91; missionary
schools for boys and girls in,
93-94; reason for downfall of
ancient kingdom of, 99; po
litical emancipation of, 106;
position of, under revised
treaty of San Stefano, 107;
constitutional government in,
108, 112-116, 123-125; political
parties in, 117-119; effect of
treaty of Berlin on, 169 ; Turk
ish massacres in, in 1876, 180;
alliances with Serbia and
Greece (1912), 184-185; posi
tion of, relative to Serbian
attempt to gain outlet on Adri
atic Sea, 187; difficulties be
tween Serbia and, leading to
Second Balkan War, 187-191;
disastrous effects on, of Second
Balkan War, 191; spoliation
of, by treaty of Bucharest
(1913), 191; feeling in, against
Serbia and Russia, 191-192;
course of, in world war, 192-
195; factors leading to alliance
with Central Powers, 195; at
titude taken by, in the war,
196-198; wrongs inflicted on,
by Peace Conference of Paris,
206-209.
Bulgarians, not direct descend
ants of Bulgars, 7-10; a Slavic
people, 10.
Bulgars, origin and nationality
of, 5-7; number of, 7; amalga
mation of, with Slavs, 7-11.
Buxton, Noel, writer on Balkan
problems, 195.
Byzantine Empire, school sys
tem in, 65-67.

Capitulations, Franco - Turkish
treaty called, 159-160.
Carloftsi, college at, 59, 89; treaty
of, 161.
Cartoon, a Turkish, 142.
Cathari, sect of, 56.
Cell schools, primary education
in, 72-73, 86.
Church organization in Balkan
countries, 28-52, 61-64.
Class distinctions, avoidance of,
in Balkan States, 112, 114-115.
College for Girls, Constantino
ple, 93.
Communal organization among
Christians of Balkan countries,
102-103.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Em
peror and writer of 10th cen
tury, 2, 15, 38; erudition of,
66.
Constantinople, Patriarchate of,
67-69, 101 ; education in mod
ern, 92-93; American schools
in, 93.
Constitutional government, in
Balkan States, 107-125; at
tempted, in Turkey, 140-143;
under Young Turkey party,
145-147.
Crete, union with Greece, 147,
178; account of conditions in,
and history of, 176-178.
Crimean War, 168.
Crispi, quoted on a Balkan Con
federation, 200.
Croats, settlement of, in Balkan
Peninsula, 15; introduction of
Christianity among, 15.
Crusades, rise and degeneration
of, 158.
Cyril, Slavic apostle, 9, 29, 67;
history of, 30-31.
Cyrillic alphabet, 53-54.

Danubian principalities, 87-89.
See Moldavia and Wallachia.
Despot, use of title, 19 n.
Dobrudja, the, 5.
Druses, massacres of Maronites
by, 182.

INDEX

213

Durazzo, attempted acquisition
of, by Serbia, 186.
Dushan, Stephen, 17, 40.
Eastern Orthodox Church, 30;
four canonical Patriarchs of,
35; condition under Turkish
rule, 44-47; the State church
in Balkan countries, 115.
Eastern Roumelia, creation of,
by treaty of Berlin, 107, 169-
170.
Education in Near East, 65-96,
115. See Schools.
Engelhardt, Edouard, French
diplomat, 199.
European Powers and Near East,
156-183.
Exarchate, Bulgarian, 50.
Fallmerayer, Professor, theory
of, 2.
France, origin of name, 11;
treaty between Turkey and,
159-160; influence of, in Con
stantinople, 160; military ex
pedition sent to Syria by
(1860), 182.
Freedom of press in Bulgaria,
115.
Garashanin, Serbian politician,
205-206.
Gennadios, Greek Patriarch, 70.
George, King of Greece, 112.
Gerlach, Stefan, German scholar,
70-71.
Girls, education of, in Balkan
States, 90-91.
Gladstone, W. E., interest of, in
Bulgarian cause, 180.
Glagolitic alphabet, 53.
Gortchakoff, Alexander, remark
of, 169.
Great National School, school
named, 70.
Greece, percentage of illiteracy
in, 91; independence of, se
cured by treaty of Adrianople,
106, 176; constitutional gov
ernment in, 111-112; parties
in, 117; revolution in 1821,

174; alliance with Bulgaria
(1912), 184-185.
Greek Church, correct name for,
30.
Greek schools, education sup
plied by, 70-84; in Bulgaria,
85-87; in Danubian principali
ties, 87-89; influence of, 95-96.
Gueshoff, Prime Minister of
Bulgaria, 187.
Guilds in Balkan countries, 103-
104.
Halil Pasha, Turkish admiral,
127.
Hamid, Sultan, reactionary rule
of, 143-145.
Hatt-i-Sherif, sacred edict, 131-
133.
Heraklios, Byzantine Emperor,
15, 38.
Herzegovina, Turkish abuses in,
178-180.
Hobhouse, J. C, quoted, 73.
Hungary, church organization in,
45-46.
Hunyadi, John, Hungarian hero,
19, 159.
Illiteracy, percentages of, in Bal
kan States, 91.
Intellectuals in Turkey, 152.
International League of Peace
(1886), resolution of, concern
ing Balkan federative organ
ization, 201.
Ipek, Serbian Patriarchate of, 41,
43, 45.
Janissaries, Turkish troops called,
19-20; lawlessness and inso
lence of, 128; done away with,
by Sultan Mahmoud II, 128-
129.
Jiretchek, Czech historian, 10, 14.
Jugoslavia, formation of, 110.
Justinian, Emperor, rumored
Slavic origin of, 28.
Kainardja, treaty of, 164-165.
Karadjitch, Serbian scholar, 60.

214

INDEX

Karageorgievitch dynasty in Ser
bia, 110.
Karloftsi, college at, 59, 89.
Knyaz, derivation of, 3.
Kossovo Polje, battle of, 18, 27.
Krai, derivation of word, 3.
Lamansky, Professor, quoted, 55-
56.
Lebanon, autonomy of the, 182.
Leese, C. L., writer on Balkan
problems, 195.
Levski, Bulgarian patriot, 206.
Literature, Slavic, . 52-61.
Ludendorff, General, quoted, 198.
Macedonia, in 10th century, 8;
settlements of Albanians in,
24-25; Aromani or Vlakhs in,
25-26; Slovenish language of
Slavs in, 54; disposition of, by
treaty of San Stefano, 106-107;
arrangement concerning, under
Serbo-Bulgarian treaty of 1912,
185; taken from Bulgaria by
treaty of Bucharest (1913),
191; majority of Christian
population Bulgarian, 204.
MacGahan, J. A., newspaper cor
respondent in Balkans, 180.
Mahmoud II, Sultan, reforms of,
128-131.
Maronites, massacres of, 182.
Mavrocordato, Alexander, pro
moter of learning, 81-82.
Mazzini, advice of, to Balkan
people, 200.
Medjid, Sultan, attempted re
forms of, 131-138.
Mehmed Sokolitch, grand vizier,
20, 40.
Mehmed the Conqueror, Sultan,
100, 101.
Methodius, Slavic apostle, 9, 29;
work of, in Moravia, 31-32.
Metternich, Prince, influence of,
in Turkish affairs, 133-135;
quoted on Turkish massacres
of Greeks, 175.
Michael, Serbian Prince, 201.
Milan Obrenovitch, ruler of Ser
bia, 109-110.

Miller, William, author of The
Balkans, 116.
Milosh Obrenovitch, Serbian
leader, 109.
Milovanovitch, Serbian Minis
ter of Foreign Affairs, 185.
Mithad Pasha, Turkish reformer,
142-143.
Mohammedan sacred law an ob
stacle to reform in Turkey,
149-150.
Moldavia, Greek schools in, 87-
89; autonomy of, under treaty
of Adrianople (1829), 176.
Monasteries, ancient learning
concentrated in, 66.
Montenegro, resistance in, to
Turkish rule, 23; classed as
one of the three Balkan States,
202.
Moravia, work of Cyril and
Methodius in, 30-31.
Navarino, battle of, 176.
Nemanya, Stephen, 16, 39.
Nemanya dynasty in Serbia,
16-17.
Nesselrode, Count, quoted, 170-
171.
Niketas, Patriarch, 29.
Northcliffe, Lord, propaganda
carried on by, 195.
Novi-Bazar, town of, 14, 38.
Obradovitch, Serbian monk, 59.
Obrenovitch dynasty in Serbia,
109-110.
Ohrida, Archbishopric of, 36, 38.
Otho, King of Greece, 111-112.
Paparigopoulos, Greek historian,
11.
Paris, treaty of (1856), 136, 168,
182.
Pashitch, Serbian Prime Minis
ter, 185.
Patriarch of Constantinople, 67-
69; office and prerogatives of,
101.
Patriarchal School in Constanti
nople, 81, 82.

INDEX

215

Patriarchs of Eastern Orthodox
Church, 35.
Paulicians, sect of, 43, 56.
Peter, King of Serbia, 110.
Peter the Great of Russia, 127,
129; "Testament" of, 162-163.
Pinakidia, bark tablets, 77.
Political parties in Balkan States,
117-119.
Posharovatz, treaty of (1718),
161.
Ranke, L. von, German histo
rian, 21.
Rasa, old town of, 14; bishopric
of, 38.
Robert College, work of, 93.
Roman Catholicism in Balkan
countries, 43.
Roumania, Greek schools and
learning in, 87-89; percentage
of illiteracy in, 91 ; annexation
of Southern Dobrudja to, 191;
not properly a Balkan State,
202.
Russia, origin of name, 12; in
fluence of Bulgarian literature
in, 55-56; influence of example
of, on Turkey, 127; policy of,
regarding the freeing of Chris
tians from Turkish rule, 162-
163; treaty of 1774 between
Turkey and, 164-165; defeated
in Crimean War, 168; war with
Turkey in 1877-78, 169; San
Stefano treaty with Turkey,
and replacing of by Berlin
treaty, 169-170; claims of, to
settle for herself question
with Turkey, 170-171; feeling
against, in Bulgaria, 191-192.
Samokov, American Collegiate
and Theological Institute of,
93.
San Stefano, treaty of (1878),
106, 169; revision of, by Euro
pean powers, 107.
Sava, saint of Serbian Church,
39-40.
Scanderbeg, Albanian command
er, 159.

Schools, in Bulgaria, 48; in By
zantine Empire, 65-67; Greek,
70-89, 95-96; Christian, con
trasted with Turkish, 91-93;
work of American, in Balkan
Peninsula, 93-94.
Schuyler, Eugene, American
Consul General at Constanti
nople, 180-181.
Selim III, Sultan, 127-128.
Serbia, early history of, 14-18;
becomes a Turkish province
(1459), 18; history under the
Turks, 18-23; introduction of
Christianity and Church or
ganization, 38-47; early litera
ture of, 57, 58-60; schools and
educational system in, 89-90;
percentage of illiteracy in, 91;
reason for downfall of king
dom of, 99; political emanci
pation of, 106; constitutional
government in, 109-110; po
litical parties in, 117-119;
revolutions of£ because of law
less plunderers, 171-174; au
tonomy of, under treaty of
Adrianople (1829), 176; alliance
between Bulgaria and (1912),
184-185; activities of, in First
Balkan War (1912), 185-187;
differences between Bulgaria
and, 187-188; intention of, to
demand revision of treaty,
189; excited state of public
opinion in, 190; early designs
of, against Bulgaria, 199, 202-
203.
Serbians in Austria, 24.
Simeon, Bulgarian King, 35.
Slavonia, the name, 1.
Slavs, derivation of word, 1;
first invasions of Balkan Pen
insula by, 2; tribal organiza
tion of, 3 ; come under influence
of Byzantium, 4-5; effect on,
of appearance of the Bulgars,
5-6; formation of state from
tribes of, 6; origins of modern
Bulgarians found among, 7;
amalgamation of Bulgars with,
7-11; beginnings of Church or-

216

INDEX

ganization and of literature
among, 28 ff.; spread of Chris
tianity among, 31-32; beginning
of a literature of, 52-56.
Sloveni, the word, 1.
Slovenish language, 54.
Sobieski, John, Polish King, 161.
Soldier villages, 104-105.
Southern Dobrudja, annexed to
Roumania, 191 ; given to Rou
mania by Peace Conference of
Paris, 207.
Stanoyeivitch, Serbian historian,
17, 99.
Sultan, temporal and spiritual
powers of, 153.
Tchorbaji, communal organiza
tion, 102-103.
Testament of Peter the Great,
162-163.
Theodosius, Emperor, university
founded by, 66.
Thessaly, Aromani or Vlakhs in,
25-26.
Thrace, disposition of, by treaty
of San Stefano, 106-107; west
ern, given to Greece by Peace
Conference, 208.
Tirnovo, Bulgarian capital, 14;
Bulgarian archbishop pro
claimed in, 37.
Tsar, use of title, 3-4, 17 n., 98.
Tsviitch, Professor, quoted, 203.
Turkey, efforts toward reform in,
126; effect of example of Rus
sia on, 127; innovations of
Selim III, 127-128; destruction
of Janissaries by Mahmoud II,
128-129; other reforms, 129-
131; sacred edict promulgated
by Sultan Medjid, 131-133;
Metternich's advice to, 133-
135; further attempted re
forms of Medjid, 135-138;
cause of failure of reforms,
139-140; first Turkish Consti
tution, 140-143; reign of Sul

tan Hamid, 143-144; revolu
tion of 1908, 144; regime of
Young Turkey party, 144-147;
obstacle to reform found in
Mohammedan sacred law, 149-
150; other obstacles to re
form, 151-154; present posi
tion of, 154-155; relations be
tween European Powers and,
166-183; defeat of by Balkan
States (1912) ? 186; enters
world war on side of Germany,
193.
Ulemas, Turkish religious lead
ers, 128, 153, 154.
Universities, in Byzantine Em
pire, 66; state, in Serbia,
Greece, and Bulgaria, 90.
Venedi, the name, 2.
Vienna, Congress of: action
toward Turkish question, 166;
heartless treatment of Serbians
by, 173.
Vladislav, Polish leader, 159.
Vlakhs, people called, 25-26; in
Macedonia, 64.
Voynik villages in Balkan coun
tries, 104-105.
Waldenses, descent of, 56.
Wallachia, Greek schools in, 87-
89; autonomy of, under treaty
of Adrianople (1829), 176.
Weigand, authority on Vlakhs,
26.
Wenden, the name, 2.
Women, education among, in
Near East, 88; education in
modern Bulgaria, 90-91.
Young Turkey party, 140, 144-
147.
Zhupan, Serbian governmental
division called, 16.